User talk:LittleJerry/Archive 1
|
|}
Re
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Did you need help with something? The Arbiter★★★ 15:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I want the name of a Category article changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ok. Which one did you want? The Arbiter★★★ 00:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- I want Category:Socialist Anarchism changed to Category:Social Anarchism. It is the more common name. Thank you LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think that I can move a category page. You might enlist some help from an admin, as moving category pages is a bit more complex than normal pages. I suggest you go talk to user:Arbitrarily0 for help. Cheers! The Arbiter★★★ 00:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- I want Category:Socialist Anarchism changed to Category:Social Anarchism. It is the more common name. Thank you LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Caution
Usually I would fire off a blanket warning using twinkle, however seeing as I have interacted with you recently I will take a Good Faith approach. It seems you have been editing a few articles without actually contributing further and adding information that is unsourced and poorly written. I hope you stick around to edit, I would suggest finding a user willing to adopt and assist you in becoming a more skilled user and help you understand some policys and procedures. Good luck ZooPro 08:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Which, articles? Have you seen what I've done to the Grevy's zebra article? LittleJerry (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes you have contributed some information to the article but for the 20+ edits in the history I am not sure it weighs up with the amount of actual "work" being done. I also have a feeling you also edit from an IP address and some of those edits concern me. I would like you to stick around however if I was you I would look into adoption. ZooPro 09:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
reply.
I can see that. Thanks for noticing that. Those images are considered bad images and are only allowed in certain places. What I recommend for you is to contact an administrator. Because sadly I am not one yet. I recommmend this user because he is the one I contacted to allow the main image on there. Good luck. − Jhenderson 777 15:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
GA nom for Mars (mythology)
Hi, LittleJerry, thanks for your note. This is probably silly, selfish, and inappropriate of me, but I wonder whether you'd consider withdrawing your GA nomination for Mars for now. I've been working on it, but would not like to feel pressured over the holidays to devote so much attention to it. There are several important sections missing, such as Mars' festivals and rituals, his sacrifices and prayers, his mythology in Latin literature and art (particularly the "Venus and Mars" motif). I'm currently working on a couple of related articles in order to be able to summarize these things clearly and concisely, but I would expect it to take a month or two of concerted effort. Is this bad form to ask? I do appreciate your nice remarks and interest. I just feel that it's premature to nominate an incomplete article for GA status. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, Happy New Year — which is not unrelated to Mars, since originally his month was the first. I haven't forgotten about our conversation on this, and will get back to Mars soon. A question came up at Talk:Pluto (mythology) that required triage, and as I tried to find the scholarship to answer it, the question grew more and more interesting to me. And so now I'm working on finishing one last section on Pluto before returning to Mars. Cheers, Cynwolfe (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Susceptible to flattery though I may be (and thanks), I don't foresee giving this much attention to other major deities anytime soon. Mars and Pluto intersect in a way that's congenial to sorting out some stuff about the Campus Martius and various rituals, games, and landmarks there, about which I did a number of small articles, with more to come. I might look at some aspects of Venus, Diana, and Juno. However, I've long been planning to make a concerted effort at Roman mythology, as has User:Haploidavey (who's done huge things with Ceres (mythology)), and hope to tackle that after Mars, though I also need to do some off-WP projects. Roman mythology is an important article with major weaknesses, and it's quite possible that in the course of that I'll want to do more for specific Roman gods. Best, Cynwolfe (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello LittleJerry, I note that you haven't edited the article Asian black bear and only a bit for Giraffe. Generally reviewers (like me) will find bits and pieces to fix before an article attains Good Article status. Are you willing and/or able to try and fix any issues which might arise with these articles? I post this as I'd hate to review and list a bunch of things and see nothing done about them. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, more likely the Giraffe article. LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
December 2010
Thank you for your suggestion regarding Red Kangaroo. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). ZooPro 01:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- I just think it could use a few more sources particulary in the ecology section. LittleJerry (talk) 05:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Fictional history of...
Hi, LittleJerry, and welcome to Wikipedia! I've seen you've been contributing well and generously to articles on mammals especially. Many people write about popular culture, but fewer can write knowledgeably about the sciences. I thank you for getting involved in what I believe to be one of today's most important educational projects.
I agree wholeheartedly that Fictional history of Spider-Man, Wolverine, etc. violate basic Wikipedia policies/guidelines. I think the recent deletion of Fictional history of the Green Goblin sets a precedent that we can cite, by pointing to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional history of Green Goblin. Every reason for deletion there is the same reason here.
I would support a deletion. Given the acrimony with editor Dream Focus there, it might seems like pouring salt in the wound, or "piling on" as they say in American football, were I to propose the deletion. I know that might sound overly solicitous, but it's important to foster a feeling of community and that no one "has it out" for anyone else. However, if someone else were to propose it, I would be happy to be one of many editors each weighing in.
I applaud you for being a relatively new editor who wants to work to improve Wikipedia in more than the usual ways. It's good to be working with you. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Seriously out of all those editors that tried to nominate those articles for deletion, it would take your nomination to actually get a delete. Congrats on that. − Jhenderson 777 23:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks LittleJerry (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Roman deities
Hi LittleJerry, and thanks for your note. I thoroughly agree that these topics need attention, but my own editing habits take me hither and yon – I'm all tangents, and haven't planned tackling the Big and often misleading Twelve in any systematic fashion – except maybe an occasional and irritable picking at blatant errors in their articles. Thing is, once I get stuck in I find it hard to stop, and then I end up with a overload of half-digested, half-finished stuff on my small plate. Anyhoo, I'm trying (and mostly failing) to cultivate a more disciplined seed-bed on the Aventine, and take it from there; thus the plebs and their cults – the so-called Aventine Triad, Bona Dea and others – I guess I might get around to Diana and Fortuna, sometime or other; probably also Bacchus. As to the others, Cynwolfe's doing a fabulous job on Mars (mythology). She might not be able to resist Juno. But then, she might. Oops, I see she's already posted here on the matter (see above). PS: and yes, Roman Mythology's a core article here; so's Religion in ancient Rome, of course. I daresay both will be much more easily nudged into shape once the deity potholes are filled, one at a time. So it seems to go. Regards, and Happy New year. Haploidavey (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Stolen body hypothesis AfD Debate
I've edited your AfD nom of Stolen body hypothesis; as it stood it probably never would have been noticed or closed except by people who explicitly visited the page. Not to be too annoying about process, because I believe this nomination to have been made in good faith, but if there is one time in Wikipedia when process is important, it's getting it right before *deleting an article*. Please use WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion in the future. SnowFire (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Grevy’s zebra
Hello LittleJerry. I see I need to explain why I tagged Grevy’s Zebra in the ways that I did:
(1) Regarding the {{Which?}} tags in section Taxonomy and naming: that section is not a lead section and is therefore not an appropriate place for easy generalities that will be covered later. If you want to stay with generalities at this stage and cover them later, you should at least insert "(see xxxx)" and provide xxxx with an anchor link. In any case, I can find no characteristics identified as "primitive" in the rest of the article (this is the only use of the word "primitive" in the whole article) and no comparison with the other zebras in the Behavior section. So "explained below" is hardly fair. I am therefore reverting this change. By the way, the statement "It was the first living zebra to emerge as a species" is unsourced.
(2) Regarding the {{clarify}} that I placed against the words "assimilate together": there appears to be nothing in the Wiktionary entry for "assimilate" that refers to anything that Zebras might do to one another. "Assimilate together" is nonsense. I suspect "associate together" may be what you meant, but it's up to you what you put. Notice that I used {{clarify}} not {{citation needed}}, so "not disputed" is not a relevant answer. I am also reverting this change.
(3) The Description section is no longer an unreferenced section, but the second half of it is still unreferenced and I imagine this could be an obstacle to the success of the GA review you have asked for. By the way, having a sequence of sentences each with the same reference is unnecessary and makes an article look fussy (and harder to edit). One at the end of the sequence of sentences (within one paragraph) is enough, unless they appear to conflict. (This explains why I removed several on Wednesday).
LittleJerry, I have to say that the copyedit I did on Wednesday was intended to help you towards the GA review that you are seeking. There was lot to edit and it took a large amount of time. I found your removal of the tags I put there, with irrelevant two-word dismissals and without seeking clarification from me as to why I put them there, to be very disappointing. I hope you will take them more seriously now I've explained them. --Stfg (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Okay then, I apologize. I'll get around to correcting them sometime. Thank you for your help. LittleJerry (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for that and for your note on my talk page. Also, thanks very much for all your hard work on this and other articles. No, I won't be doing a GA review as formal reviews are not what I do (and I probably have too much investment in Grevy's to do a fair and impartial review anyway). However, a couple more suggestions if I may:
- (1) The {{Which?}} template asks for more detail, not for more citation. The citations you added are good, for sure, but what the template really requests is to be told exactly which primitive characteristics and behaviours distinguish Grevy's from other zebras. This being an encyclopedia, not a textbook, the majority of readers won't have acccess to the references.
- (2) References on the web are more valuable, because more accessible, than those only available in print, so it's very desirable to give URLs where possible. For example, the Churcher paper (ref 7) is on the web. An easy way to find URLs is to Google a phrase from early in the paper. For example, if you Google "The skull of E. Grevyi has a relatively long rostrum" (from the 2nd paragraph of Churcher), you get just one link, and that's the one you need.
In this edit] you have undone work that I did without giving any explanation, creating this problem.
- First, you have re-introduced inconsistency in the capitalisation of Grevy's Zebra vs. Grevy's zebra. Please note what the MOS says about this. I notice that you have re-capitalised those that I changed to lower case but left intact those that were already in lower case. It is quite difficult not to draw the obvious conclusion from that. Likewise the plural. I think this is less clear, but Wiktionary gives only "zebras" as the plural. I was following that.
- Secondly, you have restored a grammatical error that I corrected, as well as introducing two new ones ("thoses" and making the Laikipia Plateau be the subject of both a singluar and a plural verb in the last sentence).
- Thirdly, you have restored the repetitious use of the same reference that I raised before. Actually, if you had discussed it in a collegiate way, I would readily have given in on that one. But you didn't.
- In this edit you have also, without comment, undone something by another editor whose recent contributions would at least justify an assumption of good faith.
I have thought hard about simply reverting the edit referred to, but decided not to for the time being. However, I am requesting you now to restore consistency and grammatical correctness to the article and in future to make proper use of edit summaries and talk pages whenever you feel the need to undo the work of other good-faith editors. --Stfg (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC).
- Thanks very much for undoing it. It's truly appreciated. The article will get there eventually. Best wishes --Stfg (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
New info/references
Hi Jerry, I can think about that. I do not know that topic well, but this type of suggestion leads to background thinking and one eventually picks up the information in time. So although not immediately, this can be done in time. I was of even aware of the need for improvements on that page for I had not even read it, so your suggestion certainly helps draw attention to it. Cheers History2007 (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Other wikis and their gods
Hi Jerry, and thanks for the note. In principle, I'm not against the idea. I've sometimes picked at corresponding articles in German, Italian and French wikipedias for the development of en-wiki articles on Roman religion; in particular, for sources, sometimes for structure: but seldom more than that. Compared to en-wiki, most non-en wikipedia articles on these topics are brief, even cursory, and the content usually comes without inline citation. That makes it very difficult to check against sources: and I always do that, even when something seems plausible rather than proven, because "plausible" can be simultaneously convincing and completely wrong. So rather than risk misinforming readers through my own misreading, I prefer to use English-language sources - French at a pinch; we've several bilingual editors who might be willing. I know we've a helpful Italian-English-speaking ally on the premises, interested in these topics.
However if you're suggesting using machine translations as a basis, then fixing the grammar as a basis for re-writing en-wiki articles, then I'd strongly advise against it. We'd be basing rewrites or additions on our own half-understanding or second-guessing of text that's based on sources we haven't read. Whoever does this sort of work should be able to grasp the meaning in both languages. Otherwise we might be imposing OR, SYN and who-knows-what on the reader, all with the most innocent and best of intentions. Of course, you might not be suggesting that at all.
Which particular articles did you mean, and on which wikipedia(s)? If you offer some links, we might discuss the particulars. Haploidavey (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick response, Jerry. I don't want to damp your enthusiasm, but I know from experience that this would be an enormous task. I personally feel that using this article as a basis would be far more difficult than rewriting - or rather, editing the English Hermes - based on English sources. Seeking confirmation of statements in under-cited articles is much, much harder than producing text that was based on scholarship in the first place: the former "puts the cart before the horse". And please note that the Portuguese article uses only some Anglophone scholarship: some passages have
it haslittle citation of any kind, in any language, in proportion to theirarticlelength. In some cases, more appropriate English-source references might be found but substantial passages are virtually uncited; some of the "notes and refs" section consists of image-links to wikimedia, so the article's less well-cited that it might seem at first glance. Still, are you fluent in Portuguese? Would you be able to offer a verbatim translation, vouch for its accuracy and deal with any queries on content? Haploidavey (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I can tell you now, (having been here before, and on several occasions) you're severely underestimating the difficulties involved in translation: I strongly suggest that you post a request for translation of the article into English, via Wikipedia's dedicated hub. It's called "Requests for translation" or somesuch; I've always had positive responses there, when asking for translation from Latin texts (and German, IIRC). We can take it from there. Haploidavey (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've never sought an entire page translation: but Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English seems the best place to go. Instructions are given on that page: just follow the same format as the requests already listed. I've rather a plateful to deal with elsewhere, and this is your idea, after all, so I'll leave it in your hands. Good luck! And just let me know when a translation's forthcoming. Haploidavey (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I've now put the en-wiki article Hermes on my watchlist. Haploidavey (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- And thanks for bringing the whole business to my attention. I'll copy the Portuguese article refs onto a user-page, and might use them to rewrite the en-Hermes at some point. I'm deeply Rome-wearied, so a rewrite might come soon, rather than later. 18:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Haploidavey (talk)
FAC withdrawn
I appreciate that you are acting in good faith, but it is best if featured articles are nominated by people who have worked closely on them. In this way, they can give reasoned replies to reviewers and be familiar enough with the sources to act on suggested improvements. Someone who has not worked on the article can not provide this input, so the nomination may continue until opposition to it becomes so overwhelming that the article is failed; this takes away time from reviewers. While the Polar bear article is of reasonable quality, it is not yet of featured quality, and principal contributors must be consulted before a nomination, as required in the featured article candidate instructions. --Andy Walsh (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Clayoquot (talk · contribs) was a big contributor and would be a good person to ask. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Review started
Hey mate, this is just a quick heads-up to let you know that I started the GA review for Grevy's zebra. The review page is located here. I look forward to working with you! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Roman gods
Thank you for your acknowledgement. Each god is such a big topic...For now I shall devote my efforts to my unfinished Sancus, besides of course Neptune.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Right-wing politics
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Right-wing politics. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. TFD (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
God of War III
Greetings. Rather than performing blind reverts, which is in fact edit warring, I'd prefer it if you discussed the issue first. Your edit is a tad too literal and actually unnecessary, as "driven back" sums things up nicely. Many thanks. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Stub equine articles
Hi LittleJerry! You've been doing great work on the Grevy's Zebra article; it looks like it's about to be awarded GA status - congratulations! I don't know how you normally choose the articles that you work on, but if you're interested, there are several stub equine articles that could use some help. They don't necessarily need to go all the way to GAN, or even to B-class, but it would be nice to get them out of stub territory. They are:
Don't know if you have any interest in these... If so, it's great; if not, no big deal. If you do end up working on them, post here or drop a note on my talk page and I can re-assess them, or feel free to do so yourself. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Iuno
I left a note on the talk page of the article. However the spelling indeed is not an issue to me...Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
You achieved it!
Hi LittleJerry, well done getting Grévy's Zebra to GA. You deserve 95% of the credit for it really. Thanks for handling today in the way that you did. Best regards, --Stfg (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
June 2011
In a recent edit to the page Red Kangaroo, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Pilot whale
Hi there; I've placed this article on hold for now. There are quite a few issues I've brought up in the review, but the articles is certainly well on its way to GA status. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Frickeg (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- The article is pretty much at GA standard now, but before I pass it I'd really like to see a little bit more in the "taxonomy" section. At the moment it describes in some detail the description of the short-finned pilot whale, but says nothing about the long-finned (which was actually described first) or the description of the genus itself, both of which I would say are fairly critical information here. Other than that the article is ready for GA. Frickeg (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- After: wow, we both posted on each other's talk pages at exactly the same time! Frickeg (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Pilot Whale GA
I just want to add my congratulations on getting the Pilot whale article to GA status. I wrote the Cuisine section, and I'm glad it didn't give you too much trouble. Good work. Boneyard90 (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, and thank you for keep the section well sourced. LittleJerry (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Good Article promotion
|
Congratulations! |
| Thanks for all the work you did in making Tammar Wallaby a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated.
In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk) |
Hello again! You'd mentioned you'd like to review an article, but could use a little assistance. Sure thing. Just pick an article in the long list at Wikipedia:Good article nominations (but make sure it's not one that someone else is already reviewing). For instance, under "biology and medicine", #8 is currently Tiger Shark. If that one interests you, there's a "(start review)" link that takes you to the screen where you would put a review. It autopopulates it with some templates and stuff, but you don't have to worry about that... just start your review below all that. I usually just say something like "I will read the article and review shortly", and then save. Then I read and start reviewing! Be sure to compare it to the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. If you need help, you can ask me, or better yet, ask one of the GA mentors and they'll be happy to help. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for starting the review of Tiger shark! I don't know if you're watching Talk:Tiger shark/GA2, but I left a few extra comments there. I hope they are helpful. – Quadell (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I just discovered that the nominator is suspected of being a sockpuppet, and might be blocked. If so, I'm willing to take over as nominator, if you'll still review. – Quadell (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks LittleJerry (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I think the sourcing of Tiger shark is formatted correctly now. – Quadell (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, again. LittleJerry (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Cut-and-paste moves
I noticed your recent attempt to move Tammar Wallaby to the sentence-case title Tammar wallaby. This was a bad move for several reasons. Firstly, it made that article's title inconsistent with other related articles (cf. Category:Macropods). Secondly, by cutting and pasting the wikitext, rather than using the move functionality, the article's history becomes separated from the article; the history has to be preserved for copyright reasons (see WP:CPM). If you wish to move the article, you will need the support of an administrator. In uncontroversial cases (I don't think this one would count unless there is overwhelming support for sentence-case naming of mammal articles), an admin can make the move straight away. In less clear-cut cases, you will have to go through the move requests procedure. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Birthdate ordering
Hi, i disagree with the ordering of Anarchism sidebar by the birth date, but let's leave it like that for now. However, if you feel strongly about that please also change Template:Anarchism otherwise we have the same information given in the different way depending on the template. Beta M (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Conservatism
Hi LittleJerry, as I said, you're welcome to broaden the scope of Wikiproject Conservatism, but your edits are reducing the scope. Instead of reducing the importance of the articles, why don't you add more articles you see as important? NYyankees51 (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Because your still giving imprantances to relatively unimportant figures. 19:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleJerry (talk • contribs) 15:39, July 22, 2011
- Not an important article for conservatism as a whole. LittleJerry (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- When you were told to use the talk pages, he meant discuss it at WikiProject Conservatism. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
3RR
Just letting you know, you're at WP:3RR on the Sean Hannity talk page. You've been reverted again, so please start discussing those changes before reverting. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- You appear to have violated WP:3RR at Talk:Sean Hannity; I have reported it here. Thanks, NYyankees51 (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Edit wars about importance ratings
You've been involved in some back-and-forth about importance ratings of articles from the point of view of conservatism. This has led to the 3RR case mentioned above, where you have apparently broken the WP:3RR rule on the rating of the Sean Hannity article. You may still be able to avoid sanctions if you will agree to wait for a general consensus before continuing to modify these importance ratings. If you agree, please respond at WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
- You broke WP:3RR at Talk:Sean Hannity. Then you continued to revert the importance rating at Talk:Bush tax cuts. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:LittleJerry reported by User:NYyankees51 (Result: 31h). EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I've been quietly watching the discussion at the WikiProject talk page, and I think that you have raised some valid points about the importance ratings. Please let me make some suggestions about how to stay on a better footing once you come back. First, I'd suggest focusing on project importance, and setting aside any actual removal of pages from the project. Second, and very importantly, don't edit war! Make a single edit, and if it's reverted, just let it go. Instead, comment about it on the Project talk page. If editors continue to treat the Project as only being about modern US politics, there will eventually be a case for WP:NPOVN, and perhaps for some dispute resolution. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Template:Conservatism
This is the most important template in conservatism. Don't you think it would be appropriate to discuss your changes on the talk page? Particularly in light of WP:BRD. I'm reverting your good faith efforts to improve the template pending your arguments on talk. – Lionel (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- What are you talking about. I did discuss it. LittleJerry (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Re: Sean Hannity importance rating: Just a reminder that it's best not to revert other editors acting in good faith. While 3 reverts in 24 hours is the normal limit, editors have been blocked for less. Please consider using WP:BRD instead. Will Beback talk 02:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, LittleJerry;
I don't mean to get after your work on Euoplocephalus, but the direct copies of the sources are a problem copyright-wise, which is why I returned it to an earlier version. I have no prejudice against including the information per se, as long as it's not written the same as the original source. J. Spencer (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- You could of at least did some fixes instead of simply reverting it. Some of the text, I don't know how to write it any other way. LittleJerry (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hello LittleJerry, long time no see. "I don't know how to write it any other way" isn't an excuse for copyvio, and if you can't think of a way, why do you think J. Spenser should manage to find a way? A way to handle such a difficulty would be to ask on the talk page, quoting the beginning and end of the passage with an ellipsis between them. That's not copyvio. HTH. --Stfg (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm finding more of this stuff in Carnotaurus ("The skull and lower jaws both have loose sutures between some bones which suggest a high level of cranial kinesis" here versus "both the skull and lower jaws have loose sutures between some bones that suggest a kinetic structure" in the source, "had more mobile joints than any other known dinosaur" here versus "presented much more mobile joints than the rest of the known dinosaurs" in the source, "can maintain an unchanging orientation of the eye with respect to prey" here versus "for maintaining an unchanging orientation of the eye with respect to prey" in the source, etc.). I did indeed fix Euoplocephalus, but I don't see that me going around behind you and fixing things is the optimal thing for either of us. J. Spencer (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- They are different enough from the source. At least the first two. LittleJerry (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- You might want to check with the group that works at the copyright noticeboard before you go too much farther. J. Spencer (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring at Template:Conservatism
Please see WP:AN3#User:LittleJerry reported by User:Lionelt (Result: ), where a complaint has been filed against you. Since you were previously blocked for edit warring just a few weeks ago, it would be sensible for you to reply at the noticeboard and promise to stop reverting until a consensus is found. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you declined to follow this advice. Since you've clearly been edit warring again on the template, I have blocked this account. As it is your second block for this on the same article, I have set the duration for 72 hours. Kuru (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
August 2011
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges.
Do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point – Lionel (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Right-wing socialism
It is a new article created by User:R-41. I would like to see a reliable source that establishes it as a topic. I know that the term "socialism" has been used to describe various conservative policies, but would like to see a reliable source that discusses the concept. TFD (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Chasmosaurus
Hello, LittleJerry;
Thanks for the heads up! Here are a few old references that can be found online:
Hatcher, J.B., Marsh, O.C., and Lull, R.S. 1907. The Ceratopsia. Mongraphs of the United States Geological Survey 49. http://www.archive.org/details/TheCeratopsia and two copies on Google Books.
Lull, R.S. 1933. A revision of the Ceratopsia or horned dinosaurs. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Natural History 3(3), in a variety of formats at http://www.archive.org/details/revisionofcerato33lull
Two papers in the Ottawa Naturalist volume 27 by L.M. Lambe, http://www.archive.org/details/ottawanaturalist27otta:
On the fore-limb of a carnivorous dinosaur from the Belly River Formation of Alberta, and a new genus of Ceratopsia from the same horizon, with remarks on the integument of some Cretaceous herbivores. 27(10):129-135. [names Chasmosaurus as Protorosaurus (preoccupied)]
On Gryposaurus notabilis, a new genus and species of trachodont dinosaur from the Belly River Formation of Alberta, with a description of the skull of Chasmosaurus belli. 27(11):145-155. [renames Protorosaurus to Chasmosaurus]
Lambe, L. M. 1915. On Eoceratops canadensis, gen. nov., with remarks on other genera of Cretaceous horned dinosaurs. Canada Geological Survey, Museum Bulletin, 12, Geological Series, 24, p. 1-49. On Google Books here http://books.google.com/books?id=AWYuAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=%22eoceratops+canadensis%22&hl=en&ei=Vj15TsP-JaHL0QGE8YzMAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22eoceratops%20canadensis%22&f=false
[Another Google Books collection of Lambe's papers includes a 1904 description of the frill of "Monoclonius" canadensis, renamed in the 1915 paper: http://books.google.com/books?id=uX8uAAAAIAAJ&pg=PR20&dq=%22monoclonius+canadensis%22&hl=en&ei=ez95TtPbPITv0gG10q3lAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22monoclonius%20canadensis%22&f=false ]
J. Spencer (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
October 2011
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Kangaroo. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Re: some help
Hello, LittleJerry;
Sure, I'll give them a look in the next few days. J. Spencer (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- I had to get a copy of Ancient Marine Reptiles through interlibrary loan to work on Plesiosaurus. Don't worry, I hadn't forgotten! J. Spencer (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- That ought to do it. J. Spencer (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Southern Hairy-nosed Wombat
Hi LittleJerry,
I have undone your reversion of Southern Hairy-nosed Wombat which had reinstated the version by User: 96.35.124.13. While the article could certainly do with improvement, unfortunately User: 96.35.124.13's edits were riddled with faults, including poor spelling, grammatical errors and ill-judged stylistic changes. He also removed content and links particularly relevant to South Australian WP users, which are especially important considering this animal is the South Australian faunal emblem. Please take more care in future. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- It appears that parts of the texts are copied from word-for word from the source. I wish you would stop reverting. LittleJerry (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- They are not copyright violations, you're just using the alleged claim for your version which you need a consensus for. Cease your disruption and stop using your IP. Bidgee (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have the source. I'm the one who built the article. I'm trying to correct the mistake. LittleJerry (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- They are not copyright violations, you're just using the alleged claim for your version which you need a consensus for. Cease your disruption and stop using your IP. Bidgee (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
In a recent edit to the page Southern Hairy-nosed Wombat, you changed one or more words from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you and I apologize. I would make the nessessary grammar corrections. LittleJerry (talk) 11:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Talk page for Elephant
Please stop changing the importance rating of the Elephant article for the Mammals project. If you believe that the rating must be changed, then open a discussion on the talk page and wait to see what consensus develops. -- Donald Albury 11:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
You did not have a consensus to change the image in this article back in August when you edit-warred to do so, and you do not have a consensus now. Discuss it on the talk page, and if other editors agree with you, you can change the image, but since the current consensus is against you do not change the image again. Editing against consensus is disruptive, and disruptive editing can get you blocked -- so stop, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
FAC
I have removed your FAC for Emu (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emu/archive2); please read the FAC instructions and refrain from nominating articles without consulting significant contributors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- I consulted FunkMonk. LittleJerry (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a resounding endorsement that it's ready, particularly considering the mention of Casliber's to do list, but if you can get concurrence from Casliber that it's ready, I'll reinstate it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Littlejerry -I just logged on briefly - we need to do a lit.search. I can do this today as a priority in a few hours (am really busy now for a while). You want this to go well at FAC and not get hammered. Big articles need to be really prepped. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a resounding endorsement that it's ready, particularly considering the mention of Casliber's to do list, but if you can get concurrence from Casliber that it's ready, I'll reinstate it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll live this all to you. LittleJerry (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Aborigine is not an appropriate term to use to refer to Aboriginal Australians. See Appropriate Terminology There are many other problems:the prose reads as a series of short disconnected sentences in places; why five separate references for its size, it's hardly contentious; odd expressions such as "a nail on its toe akin to the blade of a knife" and "a type of camouflage similar to a small hill" (what sort of camouflage does a small hill use :-); way too many "also"s; and so on ... Marj (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Done. LittleJerry (talk) 05:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Spotted hyena article
Hi
I appreciate your help and encouragement, though I honestly don't know what the procedure of nominating an article for FA or GA is. I'm waiting to recieve a book on the etymology (i.e. the origin of the term "Tiger Wolf" and "Crocuta" etc.) and evolution of hyaenids before I publish the article.Mariomassone (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Giraffe copyedit
Hello LittleJerry. I'm going to pick up your request on the GOCE page for a copy edit of Giraffe. This will require a {{GOCEinuse}} tag to be put on the page for about 24-36 hours to protect me from edit conflicts. The article's history page is showing quite a lot of activity right now. Is this a convenient time for me to dive in or would you rather I waited? Best, --Stfg (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Skunks
It would be interesting to do work on skunk articles, but I don't think I have the proper literature to reference them. I have books mentioning skunks, but only in passing. The main reason why I edited the hyena article was because I have literature actually on the species in question.Mariomassone (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Images in Giraffe
Hi, sorry I forgot to mention this before. Giraffe has most of its images on the right, and a few cases of text squashed between a pair of images. This might harm the case for FA because of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Location. I'm not very good at layout, so I didn't want to touch this. Best, --Stfg (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Reversion in giraffe
LittleGerry, why did you do this reversion of a copy edit I did yesterday? That use of "likely" is colloquial, and those commas are correct.
Also, please note that reverting someone with no edit summary at all is considered an implicit accusation of vandalism. --Stfg (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't remember doing that. I apologize. LittleJerry (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Black Mamba Review
First, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to review the article which I nominated. I am the main editor of the black mamba article and as mentioned, I am the editor who nominated the article for GA status. I have taken your suggestions and will do the best I can to improve the article so that it can attain GA status. You asked for all book cites to have an ISBN # and I completely agree, however, some very old books from before 1900 don't seem to have any sort of ISBN #. I have looked long and hard for an ISBN to these books, but I just couldn't get anything. One example of such is reference #12 (Boulenger, G.A. 1896. Catalogue of the Snakes in the British Museum (Natural History), Volume III. ASIN: B004II92FO. London. p. 437.). The best I can do was find an "ASIN" number for reference #12. Another one with the exact same problem is reference #14 (Günther, A. (1864). Report on a Collection of Reptiles and Fishes made by Dr. Kirk in the Zambesi and Nyassa Regions. 1864. London, England: Proc. Zool. Soc. London. pp. 303–314.). I couldn't find any sort of ISBN number for this either. Günther, A was actually the first scientist to describe the black mamba, just for your information. I even considered that they may be journal articles, but they don't have doi #'s or a pmid # or any sort of number. Everything else you asked me to do is no problem. Also that sub-adult lion was in fact bit and killed by that black mamba. I just have to link the second video, which I forgot to do (it's a 2 part video, but the videos are part of a large series of videos of a black mamba documentary). In anycase, I will continue to communicate with you and hope you communicate with me so that together we can make the black mamba article a GA status article. Cheers! Bastian (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Did a lot of the work you asked to be done. I think there is still some stuff left undone, but I will definitely finish all of it. Bastian (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Don't forgot to put a check near the tasks you did. LittleJerry (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Removal of wikiproject boxes from Adolf Hitler
Hi, LittleJerry. I see you have been removing two wikiproject banners from the talk page of the Adolf Hitler article. These banners are placed by the wikiprojects, and not by the editors of the article. If the people running these wikiprojects feel the article is of interest to them, they will place the banner. If you disagree with their selections, it is better to take it up with the two wikiprojects involved. Please don't remove the banners any more without a clearer reason to do so. Thank you. --Dianna (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- It was added by a user who is not a member of either project. LittleJerry (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Black Mamba GA Review
Sorry I've been gone for a few days, I've just been really busy with work (I work in the medical field in a hospital, so very hectic hours) and haven't had time to check this out. I have put the check marks next to the items which I completed and I've also crossed them out. There is still some work to be done and I will have it done, no doubt. The three on top that haven't been crossed out or check marked still got to be done also. Check it out Black Mamba GA Review. Bastian (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I just spent the last few hours fixing what you asked to be fixed and I think I'm done. However, if you see other issues let me know and I will continue to work hard to bring it up to par. The material is objective and scientifically accurate, the only problem is the formatting of the references/citations (which I think I have taken care of fully, but I'll let you be the judge). The other issue is wording and jumbled up sentences, which I also have taken care of. So I think I am done, but I'll let you judge. Bastian (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for passing the article. I put in a lot of hours of hard work, mind-boggling amount of research, and many sleepless nights trying to take the Black mamba article from what it was (a stub) to what it is now - a good article. Thank you very much for recognizing the work I did on that article. There were others that helped along the way, so kudos to them too, but truth be told, I did over 98% of the work on the article. Again, thank you very much. :) Bastian (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I have several different snake articles which I am going to work on and the King cobra is one of them. There are a lot of prominent and well known snakes that have very poorly written articles, which is just a shame. I already created two articles of very common snakes that didn't previously have an article - one was the Jameson's mamba and the other was the Coastal taipan. I was astonished that nobody had cared to make articles for those tow snakes. But anyways, yes the king cobra article will probably be my next project. Bastian (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Lopping?
Hi. I don't understand "lops" in Giraffe#Anatomy and morphology, and wiktionary hasn't helped me. Nor has the entry in the Online Etymology Dictionary that wiktionary points to. Is there an alternative way of saying it? --Stfg (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- The source uses "looping". I did some changes. LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Re:Vampire bat CE
Message added 00:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Common Vampire Bat, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Cardiac notch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Some falafel for you!
|
For your work on Common vampire bat which is now a good article – nom nom. Braincricket (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Giraffe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enamel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
New CE for Giraffe
Hi. I've been through it again as you requested. The last 5 weeks didn't do it any real harm in fact, just typos. I've taken the chance to improve a little on what I did before. Good luck with the resubmission. --Stfg (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- No worries. I've made a couple of changes to your latest edit, which I should explain. (A) I removed "also" from "Giraffes also lack dewclaws" because the paragraph doesn't say that they lack anything else. I know that you meant also in the sense of "as well as what has just been said", but it's padding, and undesirable. (B) "The pelvis is shorter in the giraffe than in most other ruminants with the ilium having more expanded upper ends." This construction of "with"+<noun>+"...-ing" is one you use a lot, but it's not wonderful and it does get picked on by some reviewers. You might like to have a look at User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing. Best, --Stfg (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Capybara GA Nom
I might start a review on your nomination of the Capybara article. Do you have an e-mail address where I can contact you privately? Bastian (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- I finished the review and passed the article. Good job man! Interesting animal. I think you were the one who passed the article that I wrote and nominated, the Black mamba. Let me know when you are nominating animal articles, I enjoy doing animal article reviews. I'll let you know when I'm nominating an animal article also, though I'm more of a snake person. Bastian (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
January 2012
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Kangaroo
First, you can't prepare an article that's currently not even a GA for FA status. Second, you should discuss such a push on the article talk page. Third, your changing of reference format without prior discussion is specifically not allowed per WP:CITEVAR. For example, I cannot stand the format where there is a separation between references (where there's just a name and a page number) with a separate notes section with the full information. Yes, I am aware that this format is used in some other articles, including some FAs. But until you can get a consensus for that version, you can't change it. For me, I would far rather have a sensible referencing format (and I consider the version you're switching to to be not sensible) than to have the article get an arbitrary star in the top right corner. Furthermore, you're removing references without any specific explanation.
In sum, it's time for you to go to the article talk page and discuss the issues you want to change. Several editors have reverted you. It's time for discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar
_Alt.png)
|
The Fauna Barnstar | |
| To LittleJerry, for the article "Giraffe". Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Giraffe
Why are you so concerned with the template not saying "journal"? Template:Cite article redirects to Template:Cite news. Is Scientific American a newspaper, if you don't want to call it a journal? Sorry, but I just don't understand. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Because it isn't a journal, it's a popular magazine. LittleJerry (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm wondering if you know what you're doing. Now you changed it to "cite magazine" which redirects to "cite journal," with the result that it shows the volume in bold, as is customary for citing scientific journals. And why have a redirect for a template if the final result is the same--namely, that you're citing in the style in which a journal is cited? Now it looks like you are citing a journal which, if I understand you correctly, is precisely what you didn't want. I'm going to leave it alone, though it makes no sense: this is WP:LAME territory. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- If that's the case then I guess it doesn't matter. By the way, are you gonna review the article and take a position? LittleJerry (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, we generally try to avoid redirects. Every redirect takes up server time. As for review, how do you mean? Is it up for FA or so? Or is it listed for GAR? Oh, it's listed at FA, I see now. No, I wasn't planning on it. I'm not a biologist so copyedits and prose tweaks are the best I can do. I think it's a lot better than Capybara; the sourcing is stronger and the prose is better, and judging from the comments it's headed in the right direction. But spot-checking finds a couple of things--are you interested? I'll give you one: "summarized by David Brown for BBC News"--sounds like he's a reporter; replace with "told" and give a brief appositional note of who he is. Also, that [BBC reference needs to be properly templated: the author's name is missing as well as the date of publication. (This is an easy fix.) Also, I'd change the reflist formatting to display in two columns: change that colwidth to 30em or so. Good luck with it. I'll be glad to help if you want me to. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Re: this edit--I just looked at 54 FAs on animals, and only three had a citation in the heading. If it were up to me I'd remove them from those as well: it is unelegant and in my opinion unnecessary. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Like I said, its meant to confirm the information in the taxbox. Plus many mammal FAs have it. LittleJerry (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I know what you said and I know what you meant. I am telling you, it is redundant--utterly--and ugly, and possibly not even correct: the infobox has Least Concern, whereas the article has "low risk". Those may be the same thing, one way or another, but the fact remains--these are two different terms. Moreover, if you want to get technical about it, which I think you are doing, the infobox also contains a map, the contents of which are not verified in that article nor on the associated articles. For instance, tippelskirchi is located on the map, but Wilson & Reeder's doesn't offer a location for it, neither in the main article nor in the one for the subspecies. But I feel like I'm talking to myself. I added a note for David Brown (without context he's nobody and his comments hold no weight), and I'm going to leave it be. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is just foolish and incorrect. It is not "being" cited, at least not in this article. The reader has no fucking clue who the guy is unless they go down to the footnote, click on the reference, read the article, and then go back to see what they said. You may know giraffes, but there are things you don't know. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- The study is discussed and cited in the article. It states: genetic testing published in 2007 has been interpreted to show that there may be at least six species of giraffe that are reproductively isolated and do not interbreed, even though no natural obstacles, such as mountain ranges or impassable rivers, block their mutual access. The study deduced from genetic drift in nuclear and mitochondrial DNA that the two giraffe populations living closest to each other—the reticulated giraffe and the Maasai giraffe—separated genetically between 0.13 and 1.62 million years ago.[14] This the the same study that Brown is involved with and is discussed in the BBC article. LittleJerry (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- And why not mention his name in the article? Or, how is a reader supposed to infer that this is the guy who is responsible for the unnamed "genetic testing published in 2007" mentioned earlier without looking at the footnotes and extrapolating that "D" stands for "David"? This goes directly to readability. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- His name is mentioned. It still says: The implications of these findings for the conservation of giraffes were summarised by David Brown, lead author of the study, right after. LittleJerry (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- The study is discussed and cited in the article. It states: genetic testing published in 2007 has been interpreted to show that there may be at least six species of giraffe that are reproductively isolated and do not interbreed, even though no natural obstacles, such as mountain ranges or impassable rivers, block their mutual access. The study deduced from genetic drift in nuclear and mitochondrial DNA that the two giraffe populations living closest to each other—the reticulated giraffe and the Maasai giraffe—separated genetically between 0.13 and 1.62 million years ago.[14] This the the same study that Brown is involved with and is discussed in the BBC article. LittleJerry (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Like I said, its meant to confirm the information in the taxbox. Plus many mammal FAs have it. LittleJerry (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- If that's the case then I guess it doesn't matter. By the way, are you gonna review the article and take a position? LittleJerry (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm wondering if you know what you're doing. Now you changed it to "cite magazine" which redirects to "cite journal," with the result that it shows the volume in bold, as is customary for citing scientific journals. And why have a redirect for a template if the final result is the same--namely, that you're citing in the style in which a journal is cited? Now it looks like you are citing a journal which, if I understand you correctly, is precisely what you didn't want. I'm going to leave it alone, though it makes no sense: this is WP:LAME territory. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
<--The first oblique reference to the study appear to be "genetic testing published in 2007." That could be anything--it's not identified by author, medium, or even whether it's a book or an article. If that were made clear, then the next reference, "The study deduced from genetic drift in nuclear and mitochondrial DNA..." is clearly identifiable as identical to the earlier "genetic testing published" and the later "the study" by Brown--which, by the way, I added: you're welcome. Why you obstinately resist identifying the study, the title, the publication title, whatever, is a mystery to me. What you need to understand is that if something is unclear to the reader, it's not always the reader's fault. I'm trying to help you and you're just arguing a moot point instead of taking some advice. If your prose had been clear, I wouldn't have added this earlier on in the paragraph, at the first mention. I don't think you realize what a huge difference it made that I added who Brown was, and you certainly seem completely resistant to input. The article does not belong to you, and as a Wikipedia editor I also have a stake in it. I'm not going to comment here anymore; this is pointless. You clearly don't want me editing the article, so I won't take this up with you again. Have a great day. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- LittleJerry, sorry I've been juggling about fifteen tasks on my plate. I'll take a look a bit later. Promise. Listen, you're doing agreat job tackling these big articles. Really. They are super hard and Lion took me ages so I know they are real gut-busters. I'll get there soon. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Casliber, and Drmies, all I did was remove (in bold): lead author of a 2007 study on giraffe subspecies published in BMC Biology. I felt it was redundant because we are introduced to the study earlier in the paragraph. LittleJerry (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Tammar Wallaby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pinna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Tammer Wallaby
Hello, LittleJerry;
Sorry I came in late, but you had the gist anyway. I tweaked the wording a bit. J. Spencer (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Two quick things
- Awesome work on Giraffe
- Mind if I redirect your userpage to your user talk page? I understand not wanting to bother filling it out, but the redlink makes you look like a newbie, not an awesome FA writer. :)
Cheers, Steven Walling • talk 04:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sure thanks and feel free to join in the FAC discussion. LittleJerry (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Re: "Mind if I redirect your userpage to your user talk page?"
Yes I do - I wish people would not do those redirections. One sentence on the user page is all it takes to get rid of the redlink. --Greenmaven (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Six dots... Nice touch! Thanks --Greenmaven (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- And thank you for copyediting the tammar article. LittleJerry (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- It was a pleasure. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
FA
yah, I struck the oppose. I didn't understand what you were saying about the page numbers til you posted it on the talk page. It just looked like they were missing. In my past case I used a ref like "Smith (1987) pp. 120-135" and they said i had to narrow it down to no more than 2 pages in a range. I wasn't used to seeing the page ranges the way you did them and ir's legit. I piss people off so I think my stuff gets scrutinized more than some, though. Good luck with it. Oh one other thing...no mention of giraffe bone, hide or hair used by humans? Giraffe bone makes great knife handle/pistol grip material.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The article Black mamba, which you reviewed for GA, is being reassessed. Your comments are requested. Danger High voltage! 09:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
3RR
You've already broken the three revert rule at Right-wing politics. Further reverts will result in a block. Danger High voltage! 15:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Plagiarism concern
Hi LittleJerry, I have a concern about plagiarism in articles you have edited. Significant problems were discovered in Giraffe, as documented by Nikkimaria at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Giraffe/archive3. I did a random spot-check on another article you worked on, Tammar Wallaby, and found direct plagiarism; you didn't even attempt to paraphrase the source, you just copied and pasted the text. I documented this at Talk:Tammar Wallaby. Are you aware that this constitutes plagiarism (and in many cases, copyright violation) and is not acceptable here? Please let me know what you understanding is of this concept, so we know what coaching may be necessary. More important, it is imperative that you let me know what other articles you've worked on contain plagiarized text, so the cleanup can begin. Do any of them have GA or FA status? --Laser brain (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- How about checking the entire article before making such broad claims. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- What broad claim did I make? I didn't say the whole article was plagiarized, I said that I found plagiarism. I'm asking if you understand what plagiarism is, since you clearly thought it was acceptable to copy and paste directly from a source.
- I do. And I always write it in my own words. LittleJerry (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- And yes, you said the entire article was likely plagarised based on just one. LittleJerry (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you always write it in your own words, how to you explain the direct copy/paste I found? And incidentally, the change you just made completely changes the meaning of the sentence. --Laser brain (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anyway, when you have time, I need you to get in involved in fixing this. If you are really claiming you always write in your own words, despite my evidence to the contrary, then you need coaching on what constitutes plagiarism, ASAP. Read Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing in addition to Wikipedia:Plagiarism. I'm willing to assume good faith and operate on the assumption that you actually just don't know what you're doing. So let's work on it. In any case, I need a list of articles where you have potentially committed plagiarism so they can be checked. --Laser brain (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Fine you can check these out:
Pilot whale- Greater bulldog bat
- Tiger quoll
- Jamaican fruit bat
- Large flying fox
- Cape Ground Squirrel
Bighorn SheepPronghorn- European hare
You'll have to do it alone. I'm done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is a disappointing response. These problems are much easier to deal with when we have the assistance of the editor. I had hoped you would stay to learn what went wrong and help us fix it. If you do decide to return, I would be happy to coach you on proper paraphrasing. --Laser brain (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- To the list provided above, add Grévy's Zebra (GA). --Stfg (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- LittleJerry, I hope you stick around. I'll be going through Tammar Wallaby and giraffe when I get some time - so if you feel too frustrated or annoyed, just wait a little and we can discuss after a review - this is partly my fault for not being more thorough then, so I'll see if we can make this a learning process all round. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Okay then, maybe you can be my co-nominator if I put these up. LittleJerry (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- To the list provided above, add Grévy's Zebra (GA). --Stfg (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Right, here is what I did with one. This can be tricky sometimes and the best thing is to find a few different sources to get a more thorough 'feel' for what they're trying to say. One learns something new every day, I never knew that's what "grizzled" meant.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
March 2012
Your recent editing history at Right-wing politics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Puffin Let's talk! 20:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- How about looking though the history or read the talk page. You clearly just poped out of nowhere and have no idea about the debate. LittleJerry (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Orangutan GOCE request
Hi LittleJerry. As you and UtherSRG are busily editing the article, I've placed the request on hold for now, because copy editing is only worth while for stable articles. When the content is stable, please let me know, and I'll remove the on-hold flag. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll let you know when UtherSRG makes his edit. LittleJerry (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Can you either send me an e-mail or enable your e-mail please? Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- What email message do you need? LittleJerry (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'd like to discuss something with you via e-mail. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I can't find your address. LittleJerry (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. When you recently edited Grévy's zebra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antiquity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 14:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
April 2012
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Left-wing politics, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. AV3000 (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Orangutan
|
|
The Fauna Barnstar | |
| I award you this barnstar for your excellent work getting the Orangutan article up to GA status. Rlendog (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
resource request
Hi,
I've uploaded the articles that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find links to the articles at that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
RE: GA nomination
You've pretty much got it. I've absolutely no idea how to do it. In fact, I was under the impression that it was wiki policy to not "blow one's own trumpet", for neutrality's sake. Mariomassone (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations
Congratulations on the passing of Giraffe for featured article! I admire your persistence and wonderful attitude. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help. LittleJerry (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Resilient Barnstar |
| For having the patience of a saint with the giraffe article.....and getting there in the end.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC) |
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Joining the cheers... :)
|
After four rounds of FA candidacy you truly deserve a drink! Congratulations to your Giraffe article promotion! Nageh (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC) |
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Enough of the changes in spelling
You have been told many times before not to change Australian spelling to US spelling but you are back to your bad old ways with changes of spelling and not using the edit summary. Bidgee (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Enough of this nonsense. I'm not all that familiar with US vs Australian spellings. I'm only interested in cleaning up articles with copyright problems. Enough of the bad faith. LittleJerry (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- I only know a few Australian spellings and when I'm cleaning up an article, I'm not concerned with whether a word's spelling is Australian or American. I'm not on any crusade to undue all Australian spellings. LittleJerry (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Re: dinosaur cleanup
Hello, LittleJerry;
I'll see what I can do when I have time. I don't think the absence of DOIs in Stegosaurus is in itself a problem for FA status, because they can be easily added. A greater problem is just the fact that it reached the FA level several years ago, so it won't be at the same standard as more recent FAs. J. Spencer (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Tammar Wallaby
Hello LittleJerry. There's a copy-paste problem in Tammar Wallaby. I've described it at User talk:Rumiton#Tammar Wallaby. Rgds, --Stfg (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi again. I'm no good at genetics stuff either, but does this difficulty perhaps suggest that that sentence is too detailed and technical for an encyclopedia? Also, since the article goes right on to mention the 2011 sequencing, isn't the 2009 exercise a bit historical now? The whole abstract in that source is very technical and difficult to unravel. One possibility might be to collapse the first half of that paragraph into something like this:
- Key immune genes from the tammar wallaby were isolated and studied in 2009,[38] and the full genome was sequenced in 2011.[39] This has provided much information ...
- That allows the 2009 research to be referenced without having to get into details that would need a thesis to explain :)) --Stfg (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Done, thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Selous' zebra
Hey. Do you know anything about the Selous' zebra? MSW doesn't mention it, IUCN doesn't mention it, sources linked from Google scholar are ancient. Any idea what's with this? --Stfg (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Kingdon's books mentions it but East African Mammals: An Atlas of Evolution in Africa, Volume 3, Part B: Large Mammals implies that it could be a hybrid population. I would try to get access to Groves, C. P. and Bell, C. H. 2004 "New investigations on the taxonomy of the zebras genus Equus, subgenus Hippotigris". Maybe it mentions what happen to the taxonomic status of this subspecies. LittleJerry (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Unfortunately that's behind a paywall and I'm too distant from any university. Oh well, thanks anyway. --Stfg (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- You don't have to be. Just request it at Resource Request. LittleJerry (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'd forgotten about that. I won't actually be doing it, as that would imply I wanted to work substantially on the article, and I actually want to avoid equids. I put a note on its talk page asking for better science, and will leave it at that. At least now I know that the Selous isn't just some fantasy. Thanks for your help. --Stfg (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- You don't have to be. Just request it at Resource Request. LittleJerry (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Unfortunately that's behind a paywall and I'm too distant from any university. Oh well, thanks anyway. --Stfg (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
- Giant anteater (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Respiration, Central, Diurnal and Vulnerable
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Help at God of War character page
Since you know the page and series, but haven't contributed to the page in over a year, maybe you can help out a bit. There's been a disagreement over at the List of God of War characters page (which is looking a lot better since the last time you made edits there if you haven't seen it recently). There's pretty much two disagreements here, the first is the lead and the second is the character descriptions. I requested an RFC on the page almost a week ago, but no one has responded to it yet. I was preferring someone who has never edited the page, but that seems like it's not going to happen. If you choose to look it over and leave some comments, do it in the RFC section here. Also, if you can, you can leave comments on the Peer Review page here to help improve the page towards "Good" or "Featured" status. Thanks. JDC808 (talk) 05:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about the lede but I will leave a comments or two at the PR. LittleJerry (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Re:Peer review
I'd love to, that's certainly an article with which I'd enjoy being involved. I'll hopefully find some time to take a look in the next few days. J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Copy editing of California sea lion
Hi LittleJerry, I completed the copy edit of California sea lion. I tagged a few ambiguous phrases with {{clarify}}, so you may want to look into those if you're going for FA or something. Best, BDD (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
A pie for you!
|
Congratulations and thanks for your work on "Tammar wallaby"! Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC) |
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Ed, Edd n Eddy
Hi, Jerry! Thanks for the source review at the FAC for Ed, Edd n Eddy. I think I took care of the two minor issues you adressed. :) All the best, --Khanassassin ☪ 16:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I hope I'm not annoying, but is the source check passed? :) Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 19:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but the delegates will decide if its good enough. LittleJerry (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Re:Peer review
Sorry, slipped my mind. I'll do my best to find some time. J Milburn (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Main page appearance: giraffe
This is a note to let the main editors of giraffe know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 26, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 26, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:
The giraffe is an African even-toed ungulate mammal, the tallest living terrestrial animal and the largest ruminant. Its specific name refers to its camel-like face and the patches of color on its fur, which bear a vague resemblance to a leopard's spots. The giraffe is noted for its extremely long neck and legs, as well as its horn-like ossicones. It is classified under the family Giraffidae, along with its closest extant relative, the okapi. The giraffe's scattered range extends from Chad in the north to South Africa in the south, and from Niger in the west to Somalia in the east. Giraffes usually inhabit savannas, grasslands, and open woodlands. Their primary food source is acacia leaves, which they can browse at heights that most other herbivores cannot reach. Giraffes are preyed on by lions, and calves are also targeted by leopards, spotted hyenas and wild dogs. Adult giraffes do not have strong social bonds, though they do gather in loose aggregations if they happen to be moving in the same general direction. The giraffe has intrigued various cultures, both ancient and modern, for its peculiar appearance, and has often been featured in paintings, books and cartoons. It is classified by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as Least Concern, but has been extirpated from many parts of its former range, and some subspecies are classified as Endangered. (more...)
UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Precious
|
giraffe |
| Thank you for sharing details about the giraffe up to necking and cultural significance, and for your quality work on other mammals, such as the Pilot whale and the Tammar wallaby, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- A year ago, you were the 194th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
You've edited this page before
Wanna come help with this page again? I'm having issues with a current editor and it's quite tiresome. There's discussions on the Talk page, but he doesn't quite discuss as much as I wish he would (I wish he would elaborate and go more in depth and cite legit examples and/or policies) and sometimes just doesn't discuss what's asked of him. JDC808 (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks but I'm not as in to it as much as you guys are and I don't really have a strong opinion either way. Sorry. LittleJerry (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Right whale
I still see several unsourced statements. Might wanna go over it again and make sure you've sourced it all. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Christopher Monckton "Conspiracy theorists" category
Hi LittleJerry. Category additions like this need to be supported by the article content (suitably sourced). You need to either add something about his belief concerning Obama's birth, or remove the category. Monckton is one of those hard cases for wikipedia, who seems to spout all sorts of claims. Personally I'm never sure how sincere he is. shellac (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 19:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
|
The Fauna Barnstar | |
| To LittleJerry, for writing the article "Giant anteater". Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC) |
Thank you for more high quality work. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Orangutan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dyak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
American alligator
I have taken on the GA review of American alligator. I was wondering if you would care to reciprocate by reviewing one of my nominations? I have put forward three articles for GAN, Sandgrouse, Tropaeolum (I've just nominated Tropaeolum today and it may not appear on the list for a few hours) and Amphibian. It is the last one that I am keen for someone to review. This is because I would like to put it forward for FA before the end of the month, the timing being important as I am competing in the WikiCup which draws to a close at the end of October. However, I appreciate that Amphibian is a rather long article and might involve a greater time commitment than you would choose to undertake. I will review your article in any event especially as you have helped me with Common toad. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. It seems someone has decided to review one of your article. If you hope to prepare Amphibian for FA then there are better people than me. Also, since you are a member of Wikiproject:Insects and Wikiproject:Gastropods may I request bringing a few articles to FA based under those in the future (preferably icons ones like bee)? LittleJerry (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help in the FAC process for Common toad which has just been promoted. When you did your spotcheck of sources I did not realise that any action was required on my part. When using several sources for the description of an organism one builds up a picture but it is difficult to reference every scrap of information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Brown Bear
Hi LittleJerry, I see that you have replaced the infobox image for Brown bear with just a brief edit summary of "reverted superior image." I'm not convinced that the current image [[1]] is better than the replaced image [[2]]. I believe portraits are better for infobox images of articles. I just wanted your know thoughts on why you think the change was needed? Yathin S Krishnappa (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I changed it because the current image shows a fuller view of the animal's body. In addition, I think a lateral view is better for a animal like the brown bear. LittleJerry (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, I would prefer the profile view in the description section to show the characteristic hump (perhaps with an image showing the giant claws). My opinion is that we should have a nicer photograph in the infobox and the characteristic images in the article. Perhaps, the profile view of the bear looking into camera would make us both happy, but I don't see such an image on commons/wiki. Perhaps I should check my Kodiak archives and see if I have something like that. Yathin S Krishnappa (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Okay but the current image does show the hump. LittleJerry (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi LittleJerry, what do you think about this image - File:2010-kodiak-bear-1.jpg - for the infobox of Brown bear. I'm trying to work on putting images of better photographic quality into the infobox and I feel the brown bear page can be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yathin sk (talk • contribs) 21:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I dunno. The hair on the current one is sleeker. LittleJerry (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi LittleJerry, what do you think about this image - File:2010-kodiak-bear-1.jpg - for the infobox of Brown bear. I'm trying to work on putting images of better photographic quality into the infobox and I feel the brown bear page can be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yathin sk (talk • contribs) 21:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Okay but the current image does show the hump. LittleJerry (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, I would prefer the profile view in the description section to show the characteristic hump (perhaps with an image showing the giant claws). My opinion is that we should have a nicer photograph in the infobox and the characteristic images in the article. Perhaps, the profile view of the bear looking into camera would make us both happy, but I don't see such an image on commons/wiki. Perhaps I should check my Kodiak archives and see if I have something like that. Yathin S Krishnappa (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Article you requested per fair use
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9158964/371.pdf
Please let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I got it. Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Article you requested per fair use
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9158964/Asian%20and%20African%20elephants.PDF
Pls let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- I got it. Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Reversions should be discussed
You recently reverted an edit of mine on infrasonic communication in the Elephant article, with an edit summary of "Thank you, but no thanks...". First, I believe it is rather bad manners on WP to delete a whole sub-section which is well researched, informative, written in encyclopaedic style and contains in-line citations without first entering into discussions on the Talk page. Second, the version you have reverted to contains the sentence 'For African elephants, these calls range from 15–35 Hz and can be as loud as 117 dB, allowing communication for many kilometers, with a possible maximum range of around 10 km (6.2 mi).' My edit contained the same relevant information for Asian elephants, so why did you delete this? I will replace my edit. __DrChrissy (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I deleted it because you did not make the citing formats consistant with the rest. In addition, I already have a source that says that infrasound is important to both. LittleJerry (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I added it back. LittleJerry (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
I feel dumbfounded to see that you delete this above-mentioned picture. Your action seems me not relevant. Did you have an eye to the associated text?
«An elephant's skull is resilient enough to withstand the forces generated by the leverage of the tusks and head-to-head collisions. The back of the skull is flattened and spread out, creating arches that protect the brain in every direction.[42] The skull contains air cavities (sinuses) that reduce the weight of the skull while maintaining overall strength. These cavities give the inside of the skull a honeycomb-like appearance. The cranium is particularly large and provides enough room for the attachment of muscles to support the entire head. The lower jaw is solid and heavy.[40] Because of the size of the head, the neck is relatively short to provide better support.[36]»
There is in my opinion a appropriate association of image and text. If you do not think so, could you please state your case?
Or do you accept that I renew the insertion of this image on the right side under or above the image of the elephant eye?
Best,--Schnäggli (talk) 11:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the image of the skull should be reinstated - it is extremely informative, much more so than the unnecessar image of an elephant's eye in the same section. If it is aesthetically displeasing to have the 2 small images, (Skeleton and Skull) then delete the image of the eye and replace it with the image of the skull.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I will add it. LittleJerry (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the image of the skull should be reinstated - it is extremely informative, much more so than the unnecessar image of an elephant's eye in the same section. If it is aesthetically displeasing to have the 2 small images, (Skeleton and Skull) then delete the image of the eye and replace it with the image of the skull.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Invisible characters
Hi. Why did you revert my edit in Elephant? I removed invisible characters that may be harmful. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Misunderstanding, sorry. LittleJerry (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elephant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Molar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jerry! Is the University of Adelaide doctoral dissertation in this request still open? I can try to get it for you ... -- Doc Taxon (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks but I don't need then anymore. LittleJerry (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Elephant
I am sorry to see that FAC reviewers still have complaints about the article. I peer-reviewed the article before the FAC and also skimmed over the article again towards the start of the FAC. (I suspect that part of the issue is that you continued to make changes to the article after my main review.) I don't think that I can help any more with the article. It may be better to find another reviewer/editor to help. Good luck. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I am going to try to copy-edit the article again.
- From the lead section, paragraph 1: "African elephants have larger ears and concave backs while Asian elephants have smaller ears and convex backs." Are you sure that "concave" and "convex" are the right way round? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Nevermind. Someone already is copyediting. But thanks anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. That what the sources say. LittleJerry (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm. The photos and diagrams seem to show the opposite. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Concave = "hollowed or rounded inward like the inside of a bowl." Convex = "a surface or boundary that curves or bulges outward". Looks accurate to me. I don't think I need an CE from you, Cas and John have done so and Sandy has now strenched her oppose. Thanks anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- That because we don't get very clear views of their entire backs. Look at this. LittleJerry (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Elephant
Hi,
I saw you have spent quite a bit of time on developing and sourcing the article. Kudos on the good work. I wanted to ask regarding your revert; the trunk section mentions multiple uses so ideally both images can be used, perhaps at smaller sizes to avoid clutter. If there is place for one image only, I'd prefer mine (I'm biased of course :)) because it shows the animal in the wild and is of much better image quality and resolution (it's featured) as opposed to the Asian one with a harness and chain around its neck. what you say ? --Muhammad(talk) 09:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
FAC review for an FAC review?
I'll review Elephant if you review God of War (video game)? Only if you have time of course. --JDC808 ♫ 19:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not needed. I just need an approval of the prose. Thanks anyway. I may look at your article later but I'm not a very good FAC reviewer. LittleJerry (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Manta ray
Congratulations on bringing Elephant to FA status. It was quite a gruelling process.
The Core Contest does not seem to be going anywhere at the moment so I am ready to start working on Manta ray when you are. I have been working recently on Common starling with Jimfbleak and we have found it convenient to use the article's talk page to discuss what needs to be done and how to arrange/format things. Shall we do likewise for Manta ray? Do you favour British English or American English? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, does next week (around Thursday or Friday) sound good? We can work and discuss then and I would prefer to use American English this time. LittleJerry (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Suits me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, does next week (around Thursday or Friday) sound good? We can work and discuss then and I would prefer to use American English this time. LittleJerry (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have now been through the whole article tweaking the prose. It is a much shorter article than Elephant which helps us. We also benefit from the fact that the manta ray is less well researched and so there is less information available from which to pick the salient points. I have also rewritten some of the image captions and changed some. I added the drawing in the "Anatomy" section because many of the images don't show the whole fish clearly. I am still unhappy with the one in the "Threats" section because I doubt whether the fish in the image are actually manta rays, and the one in the "Conservation" section I don't like because it is poor quality and not relevant to that section. The "Tourism" section image that I have included at the end impinges on the "References" section on my screen, but I will try to find some more information to add to the article that will correct this. If you don't like my changes, feel free to restore the original images. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
PS. I wondered what you had been doing for the last few days and saw you had been working on European hare so I took the liberty of improving it a bit myself. I hope you don't mind. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thats fine. Thanks for the help. I don't intend to bring that article to FA. Just GA. LittleJerry (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Here are a few thoughts on good articles and how they affect me. Firstly, I prefer working on GAs because FAs are a bit more pernickety, and the difference between them and GAs does not seem to me to be worth the extra effort. In the WikiCup, a GA scores 30 points and there are bonus points which depend on the number of different language Wikipedias in which an equivalent article appears. In the case of European hare that is about 50 Wikipedias which increases the point score for a GA by 200% to 90. Because I have worked on the article, I can claim these points even though it is you nominating it for GA. Manta ray is only on 6 foreign language Wikipedias and if successful at GA will gain me 30 points plus a 20% bonus of 6 points making a total of 36 points. A similar points system applies to FAs but in that case, only the person or people named in the original nomination are entitled to claim points. At FA, Manta ray would be worth 100 points plus 20 points bonus.
- Which brings me to the point of this message. The WikiCup has 5, two-month rounds with the top scorers going through each time to the next round, but the points being reset at zero at the beginning of each round. The earlier rounds are easy and I should have no difficulty getting to round 4 which runs through July and August. If you thought that my additions were helpful in European hare and you felt like co-operating on further articles for GA, I would be glad to do so, now or later. I would be especially pleased if they were high bonus point articles in the later stages of the Cup (July to October). European rabbit or Brown rat are the sort of articles I was thinking of but there must be plenty more. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Main page appearance: giant anteater
This is a note to let the main editors of giant anteater know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 6, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 6, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:
The giant anteater is a large insectivorous mammal native to Central and South America. It is one of four living species of anteater and is classified with the sloths in the order Pilosa. This species is the most terrestrial of the living anteaters, unlike its arboreal or semi-arboreal cousins, and is the largest of its family, stretching 182–217 cm (5.97–7.12 ft) and weighing 33–41 kg (73–90 lb) for males and 27–39 kg (60–86 lb) for females. It is recognizable by its elongated snout, bushy tail, long foreclaws and distinctively colored pelage. The anteater can be found in multiple habitats including grassland and rainforest and feeds primarily on ants and termites, using its foreclaws to dig them up and its long, sticky tongue to collect them. The giant anteater is listed as Vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). It has been extirpated from some parts of its former range. Threats to its survival include habitat destruction and hunting, though some anteaters inhabit protected areas. Because of its distinctive appearance, the anteater has been featured in pre-Columbian myths and folktales as well as modern popular culture. (Full article...)
UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Resource Request
Hi LittleJerry, I'm able to access four of the articles you requested, but you don't seem to have the ability to receive email enabled. How would you like me to send the articles to you? HMman (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC). Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of striking off the four articles I sent you and marking your request as resolved; if I made an error please don't hesitate to revert my changes. Regards, HMman (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC).
A barnstar for you!
|
The Good Article Barnstar | |
| For your contributions to bring the popular page koala to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC) |
Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Koala article
Hi, I segregated the refs on Koala to reduce clutter and make the page easier to edit. This is accepted on Wikipedia (see Help:List-defined references). But then you went and undid my work, why? Do you want the page to be more difficult to edit? Hergilei (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm use to referencing that way. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Manta GA
Hi! Just so you know, today I passed the article as I am now satisfied it meets all the criteria. Sorry it's taken so long, but the raticle was quite complex, and required a second opinion on some issues. Thanks for your work. ★★RetroLord★★ 09:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Are you gonna open a peer review page? I am ready to start. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Up now. LittleJerry (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Are you gonna open a peer review page? I am ready to start. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Koala
Hi,
I have at least two sources that say the female reaches sexual maturity at three years (not two like the article currently says); both are more recent (2005 and 2011) than the 1999 source used for the two year claim. Any objections to me changing it? Sasata (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- No that's fine. Maybe its two to three years? LittleJerry (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Cladogram
I suspect you'll want to work on this - most obviously, this may not cover the scope you are interested in (maybe you want to include all vertebrates at the outer level, maybe you want to include less); and you may want to try to find all-English or all-Latinate names.
- Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes)
- Chimaeras
- Elasmobranchii
- Sharks
- Batoidea
- Electric rays
- Sawfishes, skates and stingrays
- Sawfishes
- Skates and stingrays
- Skates and guitarfishes
- Myliobatiformes (Stingrays)
- Other stingrays
- Mobulinae
- Mobula
- Manta
Anyway, have fun with it. And good luck... Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks but I want to keep it specific to rays like in the article. I'll wait for Sasta. LittleJerry (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- As you like. We can easily just chop to begin with Stingrays, etc. But now we know for next time. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Manta ray, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caudal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 00:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Quagga papers
I've looked through Google scholar to see if there were papers that would be useful.I dont have access to any of them, but we should probably get these:[3][4][5][6][7]
These could maybe be nice as well:[8][9][10] FunkMonk (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I also found some information on the quagga's history with people and its biology/ecology. I was planning on working on Smilodon before quagga but if you're ready we can work this coming week. LittleJerry (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'll be busy with a school project (and getting Dromaeosauroides to GA) the coming few weeks, so maybe a little later? Also because I'd love to see Smilodon get improved... It seems to wander way too off topic (uncited) in the last half. FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, then. LittleJerry (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'll be busy with a school project (and getting Dromaeosauroides to GA) the coming few weeks, so maybe a little later? Also because I'd love to see Smilodon get improved... It seems to wander way too off topic (uncited) in the last half. FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Manta ray FAC
You have been fielding queries well over at the FAC, mostly before I have time to get there. This is just to let you know that I shall be away from home and computer for the next week. I'm due to return on 3rd May. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Okay then. LittleJerry (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's now been promoted. Thank you for your cooperation. I think you did more than I did to get it through but this might be reversed with Starfish. The reason I don't want to nominate that article too early is because I would like to use it for WikiCup points in the 4th round, ie after the end of June. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Okay then, I wasn't planning on nominating it that early anyway. We should at least get a PR first, shouldn't we? LittleJerry (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I should think so, but it's not ready for that yet. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Okay then, I wasn't planning on nominating it that early anyway. We should at least get a PR first, shouldn't we? LittleJerry (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's now been promoted. Thank you for your cooperation. I think you did more than I did to get it through but this might be reversed with Starfish. The reason I don't want to nominate that article too early is because I would like to use it for WikiCup points in the 4th round, ie after the end of June. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Smilodon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nasal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American alligator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Apex (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 23:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
property not used in productiion
please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property#Personal_property_versus_Means_of_Production and self-revert if you agree your good faith edit was in error.
- It seems the means of production are property. LittleJerry (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Smilodon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trauma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
June 2013
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Warrior (wrestler) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Ultimate warrior. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. NiciVampireHeart 12:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quagga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Concave (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Santa Claus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kris Kringle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
My good article review follows. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
GA Review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Quagga/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 15:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Well-written
Introduction This article is rather well-written, but it could have used a good copyedit, preferably by fresh eyes: there were occasional prose issues, mainly just little things like "The pattern of the quagga was unique among equids", when it hadn't been established that the coat pattern was being discussed. The sort of errors that are easy to miss if you've been working on the article a while. It also occasionally lapsed into present tense, when it meant past tense, e.g. saying the quagga is the most southern-living species of zebra, when the quagga is extinct, and therefore can't be described as living anywhere. Also, a bit of poor handling of uncertainty, e.g. "The quagga may have been 257 cm (8.43 ft) long and stood 125–135 cm (4.10–4.43 ft) tall", which reads a bit oddly (I've changed it to "is believed to have been").
Likewise, "The quagga was hunted by early Dutch settlers from the 1600s, and later by their descendants the Afrikaners, who thought the animals were easy to find and kill." - "thought" reads rather oddly in that sentence, and is implied if left out anyway.
All really little things, easily fixed, and they have been; I only mention them because it may be useful for the next good article candidate you do.
Things that still need fixing One thing I couldn't fix, which, even if I don't consider it quite big enough to block GA status, I would suggest fixing, is this paragraph:
| “ | On the basis of some accounts and photographs, it has been suggested that the stripes were light, contrary to the configuration in other zebras. But it has been pointed out that this is an optical illusion, and that the base colour of the head, shoulders, and other parts was a creamy white, which is what gives this impression when seen between the actual dark stripes, typical of zebras. However, embryological evidence supports zebra being dark coloured with white as an addition. | ” |
While not bad, it'd be good to try a little harder to link the facts together. Of course, you may be trying to avoid Original research, but there's ways to do that, such as saying something like "X states this was an optical illusion; however, embryological evidence states that, in fact, all species of zebras begin dark coloured, with the white being an addition."
Citations
These are generally quite good, though a little more precision would be recommended if you're going to FA, for example:
| “ | Living in the very southern end of the plains zebra's range, the quagga possibly had a thick winter coat that moulted each year. Its skull was described as having a straight profile and a concave distema,[1] and as being relatively broad, with a narrow occiput. The 2004 morphological study found that the skeletal features of Burchell's zebra and the quagga overlapped, and that they were impossible to distinguish. Some specimens also appeared to be intermediate between the two in striping. The female specimens used in the study were larger than the males on average.[2] Like other plains zebras, the quagga did not have a dewlap on its neck, as is present on the mountain zebra.[3] | ” |
Arguably, there should be a citation after the word "occiput", even though I'm pretty sure it's the 2004 morphological study described immediately thereafter. Referencing before moving on to the next major fact helps if someone starts rearranging the text, an advantage on Wikipedia.
Accuracy
The statement that "The technology to use recovered DNA for breeding does not exist" (at the end of the article) is misleading. While the intent is likely to say that one cannot put the recovered DNA into a gamete and use it for breeding that way, it's completely possible to compare DNA of the population being bred for similarity to the DNA recovered from the historical quaggas. I'd suggest rewriting this.
- How about cloning instead of breeding? FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Perfect. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Conclusion
Despite the few issues, this easily passes GA. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, some of the language issues may be due to two editors working on it simultaneously, I and Little Jerry. FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Understandable. As I said, they're the sort of little, minor things that are easy to miss if you've been working on something a while. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Alright. We still have plenty of time. LittleJerry (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Understandable. As I said, they're the sort of little, minor things that are easy to miss if you've been working on something a while. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
References
- ^ Kingdon, J. (1988). East African Mammals: An Atlas of Evolution in Africa, Volume 3, Part B: Large Mammals. University of Chicago Press. p. 139. ISBN 0226437221.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Hippotigriswas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Azzaroliwas invoked but never defined (see the help page).
- It's going unusually slow at the FAC (birds usually get more love). The main problem seems to be our lack of a copy edit, but since the review process is going so slowly as well, I guess someone will do it before the FAC is over. FunkMonk (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Promoted works
Hi Jerry, it seems you have quite an impressive amount of contributions here, is there a list where one can check out all your FA and GA work? If you even keep track, that is. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Here is where you find FA promotions. LittleJerry (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, nice, never saw that before! Is there a list of GAs? FunkMonk (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes but its only shows the people with the most GA promotions. I'm not on there. I recall bringing thirteen articles to GA status (not including the FAs which went through GA first). LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, nice, never saw that before! Is there a list of GAs? FunkMonk (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- It seems quagga is very close to passing. But too late for TFA on August 12. It was nice working with you! Tell me whenever you want to collaborate on something extinct again. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've nominated quagga for this August 12: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests/Quagga Feel free to modify the blurb. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Koala
Jerry, how do you feel about splitting out the first paragraph of "Ecology and behaviour" as a new section "Distribution and habitat"? Also, the subsection "Health and mortality" doesn't really seem to fit into the general theme "Ecology and behaviour", so maybe that should be a separate section too? Sasata (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Okay then. Also, what should be done about a "food" section? LittleJerry (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, diet is covered in "Foraging and activities", but I'd consider tweaking the section title for that too, if it comes up. Sasata (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, I mean JM is suggesting discussion of Aborigenes hunting koalas. LittleJerry (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, diet is covered in "Foraging and activities", but I'd consider tweaking the section title for that too, if it comes up. Sasata (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Okay then. Also, what should be done about a "food" section? LittleJerry (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Starfish
I would suit me to nominate Starfish for FAC now. Would you object to my closing the peer review and nominating it? Axl has stated here that he is happy for us to proceed in this way and that if he finds any further problems, he can deal with them at FAC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Okay then. Go for it! LittleJerry (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it was quite a struggle, but we got there in the end! Thank you for your cooperation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your hard work. LittleJerry (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it was quite a struggle, but we got there in the end! Thank you for your cooperation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Okay then. Go for it! LittleJerry (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pinniped, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cystophora (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
European badger
I see you put a tag on European badger asking for the lead to be expanded. I have been working on the article for some weeks with the intention of nominating it for GA. I have now expanded the lead section, but do not intend to nominate it before the end of August, because if successful, it will be a high-scoring article and the points will be useful in the final round of the WikiCup. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Okay then. LittleJerry (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Resource
Your second requested article is ready for download. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pinniped, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jetti (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pinniped, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ultrasonic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Donald Duck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walt Disney Studio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 23:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
TFA
I have nominated koala at WP:TFAR. Great article!PumpkinSky talk 02:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I made a slight change to the opening. LittleJerry (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Main Page appearance: koala
This is a note to let the main editors of koala know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on August 16, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 16, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
The koala is an arboreal herbivorous marsupial native to Australia, and is recognised worldwide as an iconic symbol of the country because of its distinctive appearance. It is the only extant representative of the family Phascolarctidae and its closest living relatives are the wombats. It is easily recognisable by its stout, tailless body, round, fluffy ears and large, spoon-shaped nose. It is popularly known as the koala bear because of its bear-like appearance. The koala has a body length of 60–85 cm (24–33 in) and weighs 4–15 kg (9–33 lb). Pelage colour ranges from silver grey to chocolate brown. Koalas typically inhabit open Eucalyptus woodlands, and the leaves of these trees make up most of their diet. Because this eucalypt diet provides them with only low nutrition and energy, koalas are largely sedentary and sleep for up to 20 hours a day. They are asocial animals, and bonding only exists between mothers and dependent offspring. They have few natural predators and parasites but are threatened by various pathogens, as well as by bushfires and droughts. The biggest threat to their existence is habitat destruction due to agriculture and urbanisation. (Full article...)
UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Star
|
The Teamwork Barnstar |
| For proposing to collaborate on quagga, which resulted in a nice little FA! FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC) |
Thanks. It was nice working with you. LittleJerry (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Million Award
|
The Million Award | |
| For your contributions to bring Koala (estimated annual readership: 1,239,000) and Giraffe (estimated annual readership: 1,233,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment--not many Wikipedians will earn even one of these in their careers, much less multiple ones--and thanks for all you do for our readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC) |
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:
| This editor won the Million Award for bringing Giraffe to Featured Article status. |
| This editor won the Million Award for bringing Koala to Featured Article status. |
If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers and all best, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! LittleJerry (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Here's one more for ya, and it's a big one!
| This editor won the Million Award for bringing Elephant to Featured Article status. |
- I probably won't leave any more of these here individually because I don't want to spam your talk, but if you do decide to trick out your user page some day, feel free to let me know or just help yourself. Thanks again for serving so many readers with your work--your contributions are breathtaking. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's alright and thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- I probably won't leave any more of these here individually because I don't want to spam your talk, but if you do decide to trick out your user page some day, feel free to let me know or just help yourself. Thanks again for serving so many readers with your work--your contributions are breathtaking. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Half million award
Just saw this news in the WikiCup newsletter, and am happy to present you with another of these already:
|
|
The Half Million Award | |
| For your contributions to bring Starfish (estimated annual readership: 630,092) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC) |
| This editor won the Half Million Award for bringing starfish to Featured Article status. |
Cheers, and thanks for all you do, Khazar2 (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pinniped, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trachea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
September 2013
Your recent editing history at Elephant shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. GedUK 11:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pinniped you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hippopotamus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ruminate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Pinniped
Sure, and if you happen to see a Mistle Thrush fly past... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- That's fine. It may be a day or two. I've had a quick look and it looks generally pretty good. I noticed quite a lot of duplicated links, you may want to run this script Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know about to run the script. LittleJerry (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Take a look at my javascript page, User:Quadell/common.js. Yours is at User:LittleJerry/common.js, or it would be if it existed. Simply copy the last line from my javascript page into your javascript page, and save it. Then close and reopen your browser, and you will see a new "Highlight duplicate links" link in your toolbox at the side of articles you edit. If you need further assistance, let me know. – Quadell (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know about to run the script. LittleJerry (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Pinniped FAC
I have begun the long and comprehensive review of Pinniped for the GAC. (I hope you don't regret requesting my involvement too much!) I plan on finishing the review tomorrow. Just as a heads-up, I will be out of town and away from all internet access from early Saturday the 21st until late Monday the 23rd, and the book-ending Friday and Tuesday are dodgy as well. So if you leave comments regarding this review during that time, I won't be able to get back with you until Tuesday or Wednesday at the earliest. And if I don't get the Pinniped review completed by Thursday, it's likely to be in limbo for almost a week. Anyway, I just wanted to keep you in the loop. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Excellent review! I've fixed a few suggestions, but real life beckons now ... Not sure what to do about "... though two subspecies of ringed seals live in landlocked lakes in Russia close to the Baltic sea.", as the ringed seal article is contradictory (says that only one subspecies is freshwater). Sasata (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking care of these. I fixed the ringed seal. LittleJerry (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't forgotten saying that I would look at Pinniped and make comments at the FAC, its just that I am still rather busy at the Sea FAC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- That's okay. LittleJerry (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't forgotten saying that I would look at Pinniped and make comments at the FAC, its just that I am still rather busy at the Sea FAC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Edit war
Here you insinuate that I am about to "cause an edit war". Please note that in the edit that you refer to, I corrected for the second time a spelling error that you reintroduced. --Ettrig (talk) 08:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, sorry for the misunderstanding. LittleJerry (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nigersaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pectoral (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nigersaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quadrate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations!
|
Seal of approval |
| Congratulations on making Pinnipedia a certified Featured Article! Your impressive work has paid off, and I'm glad to see the article on such an important group of mammals make it all the way to the top. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC) |
Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Pinniped to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA you may have helped to write) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,335 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 10:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
GA review of Nigersaurus
Not sure if you noticed, Nigersaurus got reviewed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nigersaurus/GA1 The issues I've left I thought you would be better at solving, since you wrote them. I can also write the part about openings in the skull. FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crocodilia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trachea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crocodilia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diaphragm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Crocodilia
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Crocodilia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Quadell -- Quadell (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Crocodilia
The article Crocodilia you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Crocodilia for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Quadell -- Quadell (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats! Very happy to see this one at GA. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- New GAs are now eligible for DYK. Would you like me to nominate Crocodilia? It doesn't bother me whether it is nominated or not but its appearance on the front page would demonstrate that there is some solid work on important topics being done in Wikipedia by dedicated editors like you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sure. LittleJerry (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Crocodilia
 | On 3 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Crocodilia, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a crocodilian can replace each of its teeth up to 50 times during its lifetime? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Crocodilia. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Happy holiday season....
|
Cheers, pina coladas all round! |
| Damn need a few of these after a frenetic year and Xmas. Hope yours is a good one....Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC) |
- Thank you. Are you still gonna work on those spiders? LittleJerry (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bird, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Crocodilia, and much more...
|
The Natural History Shield |
| For Outstanding Service to Natural History on Crocodilia and many other articles. Thank you so much. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC) |
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Main Page appearance: Nigersaurus
This is a note to let the main editors of Nigersaurus know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 18, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 18, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
Nigersaurus (meaning "Niger reptile") is a genus of rebbachisaurid sauropod dinosaur that lived during the middle Cretaceous period, about 115 to 105 million years ago. It was discovered in the Elrhaz Formation in an area called Gadoufaoua, in Niger. Fossils of this dinosaur were first described in 1976, but it was only named in 1999. The genus contains a single species, N. taqueti, named after French palaeontologist Philippe Taquet, who discovered the first remains. At 9 m (30 ft) long—small for a sauropod—it weighed around 4 tonnes, comparable to a modern elephant. It had a wide muzzle filled with more than 500 teeth, which were replaced every 14 days. Unlike other tetrapods, its jaws were wider than the skull, with its teeth were located far to the front, and it fed with its head close to the ground. It lived in a riparian habitat, and its diet probably consisted of soft plants, such as ferns, horsetails, and angiosperms. It is one of the most common fossil vertebrates found in the area, and shared its habitat with other dinosaurian megaherbivores, as well as large theropods and crocodylomorphs. (Full article...)
UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Main Page appearance: Crocodilia
This is a note to let the main editors of Crocodilia know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 27, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 27, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
Crocodilia is an order of large, predatory, semi-aquatic reptiles. They appeared in the Late Cretaceous, and include true crocodiles, alligators, caimans, and gharials. Solidly built animals, they have long flattened snouts, eyes, ears, and nostrils at the top of the head and laterally compressed tails. Their skin is thick and covered in scales; they have conical teeth and a powerful bite. They swim well and can move quite rapidly on land. They are found mainly in lowlands in the tropics, but alligators are also found in the United States (American alligator pictured) and China. They are largely carnivorous; some specialise on fish while others have generalised diets. They are typically solitary and territorial. In some species, females care for their young. Eight species have attacked humans, the largest number of attacks being by the Nile crocodile. Humans threaten crocodilian populations through hunting and habitat destruction, but farming has reduced unlawful trading in wild skins. They have appeared in art since at least Ancient Egypt. Tales of crocodile tears date to the 9th century, repeated by Sir John Mandeville in 1400 and William Shakespeare. (Full article...)
UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Main Page appearance: Starfish
This is a note to let the main editors of Starfish know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 28, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 28, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
There are about 1,500 living species of starfish to be found on the seabed in all the world's oceans, from the tropics to subzero polar waters and from the intertidal zone down to abyssal depths, 6,000 m (20,000 ft) below the surface. Starfish are among the most familiar of marine invertebrates. They typically have a central disc and five arms. The upper surface may be smooth, granular or spiny, and is covered with overlapping plates. Many species are brightly coloured in shades of red or orange, while others are blue, grey or brown. Starfish have tube feet operated by a hydraulic system and a mouth at the centre of the lower surface. They have complex life cycles and can reproduce both sexually and asexually. Most can regenerate damaged parts or lost arms and they can shed arms as a means of defence. Starfish such as the ochre sea star and the reef sea star have become widely known as examples of the keystone species concept in ecology. With their appealing symmetrical shape, starfish are found in literature, legend and popular culture. They are sometimes collected as curios, used in design or as logos, and in some cultures, despite possible toxicity, they are eaten. (Full article...)
UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Copy and paste move
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Somali Giraffe a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Reticulated giraffe. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. .
I know this was a long time ago and you probably know it all by now; I'm only adding the notice to stay with the recommendations on WP:CPMV. If you remember doing something similar to other pages, please consider requesting a history merge. Cheers, 62.107.222.111 (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Starfish
It is nice to see "Starfish" on the main page. (I am not sure why it has taken so long.) Thank you for all your editing. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Whoops
Sorry. The person's not living. I would feel better if you cite your sources though. Sorry for the mistake! Mz7 (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Rule 187–94. is the source. Like the others. LittleJerry (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
A pie for you!
|
|
Sorry for all the reverts and accusations of vandalism. I truly thought you were inserting unsourced defamatory content about a living person. I guess I need to slow down and read more carefully next time. Heh heh, lesson learned. Here's a pie. Cheers! Mz7 (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC) |
- Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 02:20 21 March, 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
IJReid (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thanks for letting me nominate Narwhal when it is ready. You setting aside your work to allow me to increase my chances in the WikiCup is greatly appreciated. IJReid (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| Thanks for your tireless efforts to bring our tiger article to a GA nominee! BigCat82 (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC) |
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Tiger
I see the referencing is being criticised at the GA review and I will work on this now before the reference numbers mentioned in the review become inaccurate. Do you have page numbers for books such as Wild Cats of the World? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I can't do much today. I'm ill and in the ER. If you can't all the find ref pages, maybe you guys can convince the reviewer to pass it since it's more of a thing for FA. LittleJerry (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, and Walker's mammals can be found here. LittleJerry (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Wishing you a speedy recovery. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think the reviewer is going way beyond the GA criteria in this review. For example, I do not consider that the fact that "Tiger" is a high-importance, much-visited page is relevant to the review. Also, I am reluctant to spend too much time rootling through the references to try to find better sources because I believe the reviewer intends to fail the nomination despite our efforts at improvement. I believe there is an appeal process if it does fail. Don't worry about it, we'll win through in the end. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Wishing you a speedy recovery. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, and Walker's mammals can be found here. LittleJerry (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Tiger
Take care man, hope you will get well soon. I will see what I can do. I am not a native English speaker and my written English may not be up to the GA standards but I will try my best. BigCat82 (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you/ LittleJerry (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, not sure why you're removing my bronze image? Surely historic art depictions of a now very rare event, tigers attacking elephants, are of clear interest? Even if such interactions were rare, they were considered important enough to spend serious money on. What is your logic? Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- It clustered up the sections. Also, art can depict anything, such as a tiger attacking a dragon. It doesn't add anything educational. LittleJerry (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Let me first point out that the topic is not 'biological species: tiger' but 'tiger in general', human response and all. I may dislike mascots and cartoons, you may dislike art history and sculpture, but both are relevant to the topic.
- Now then. There was no visual clutter, and not an excessive number of images per section or in the article. As for the topic, it was absolutely not an imaginary dungeons-and-dragons theme, but significantly the claimed genuine occurrence of tigers attacking elephants, as reported (and cited) in the nineteenth century. This is important as such occurrences are now very rare, if any more still occur given the rarity of tigers and the decline in elephants and habitat. The message is "people on the ground then believed tigers attacked elephants". I think this is well worth illustrating with an undoubted historic artefact like the bronze sculpture. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Guys. Shouldn't this thread be on the Talk:Tiger page? I agree with Chiswick Chap. the image of the bronze should be included. It is informative, represents a real situation, and the image is of good quality. That are of the article is border-line cluttered, but I would not rate it as over-cluttered.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support, and hoping to put the image back shortly with agreement, but I'd prefer not to have the thread moved just now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, its fine I guess. LittleJerry (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
hippo ranching
It is just one paragraph, but as I said in my undo, this deletion should be discussed in the talk page and not summarily removed. I will revert the paragraph and start the discussion. If you feel the paragraph is offensive, please make your concerns known in the talk page, but until there is consensus, the paragraph I help create and cite needs to stay.Ctatkinson (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Kentrosaurus
In principle: yes, very interested! In reality: if you can make my days have 48 hours.... HMallison (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, when would you have the time? LittleJerry (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hm, next century? OK, next decade?
- Seriously, I can slowly work on it from time to time; did start a re-write ages ago [[11]] but never got far. We can take it slow and see.... HMallison (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Can you send me a file of "CAD assessment of the posture and range of motion of Kentrosaurus aethiopicus Henning 1915"? LittleJerry (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, never heard of this. HMallison (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I sent you an email. LittleJerry (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, when would you have the time? LittleJerry (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- tx
- can you check out the reference structure I used for Plateosaurus, please? It allows using an alphabetically sorted ref list without duplicates combined with the option for citing exact pages. It also makes sorting the refs easy. I'd like to use this for K., too. HMallison (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, don't have time to really do a thorough review and if I did, I'm sorry to say I'm not exactly the worlds biggest ornithischian expert! Pretty much any other group of stem-bird I could contribute more to... ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Okay thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kentrosaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Decapod (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Tiger
Sorry I didn't reply your messages on my talk page earlier. Soon after I started editing on the article I got a big project in RL and I couldn't even afford sleeping. I already saw that the tiger article achieved GA standards thanks to the efforts of a few of you. Thank you!
I am reading the article again and I think can think of some more improvements. Firstly, the statement "Tiger predation on Asian elephants is rare and restricted to small calves" is too definitive and is actually wrong, because I have a few secondary and tertiary sources reporting accounts that tigers and tigresses took down fully grown adult Asian tusker elephants as preys. I read them online many years ago (2001-2006) and sadly many of the sources are no longer available online (they are mostly reliable reports from major news media in India but now the claims cannot be verified online so they may be subject to challenges). However, a few are still accessible online but I think they will be gone soon as the news are getting old. My questions are, can we use sources that cannot be verified easily (in this case, unless an editor from India verifies the information from his or her local news archives, I cannot prove it)?
Secondly, "Crocodiles, bears and dholes may prevail against and even kill tigers. In particular, dholes may attack and kill a tiger if the pack is quite large" probably needs some improvements and rewriting, as from the sources I read, only salt water crocodiles and grizzly bears killing tigers have been reported. But the mugger crocodiles and slot bears are prey items of tigers and they are not known to kill tigers. The statement is too generic and may mislead readers that muggers and slot bears may kill tigers. And as I said before only two confirmed cases of dhole packs killing tigers with unknown conditions and a long extensive study on tiger and dhole relationship showed that no single tiger of any age was killed by dholes since 1990. The statement "In particular, dholes may attack and kill a tiger if the pack is quite large" seems to emphasize and imply that dholes are more capable of killing tigers than crocodiles and bears are. Although rare, there are still more grizzly bears killing tigers than dholes and salt water crocodiles killing tigers. I think the last statement can be deleted and the first statement can be changed to "Brown bears may prevail against and even kill tigers. Although rare, salt water crocodiles and dholes are also known to do so".
If you are interested to further improve the article please let me know and I will post the sources for you. Thank you.
BigCat82 (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- As I stated on the talk page, the sentence is meant to describe general conflicts not just killings, even sloth bears have been recorded driving tigers away. Here is what the subsection looked like before I trimmed it. The sentence was meant to summarize all that.
- As for the elephants. If these killings are on tame worker elephants (as with the current source) then I don't we should mislead people into thinking tigers prey on wild Asian elephants. LittleJerry (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the edits it looks better. As for the preying on elephants, I was talking about fully grown wild tuskers, not tamed ones (and tamed elephants usually have tusks removed). I was as surprised as you were when I learnt so but it is a fact that tigers do prey on fully grown elephants and rhinos, unlike lion prides which can only take down elephant calves. There are quite a number of reliable third party sources proving it, only that many became removed from online viewing. The two online new media sources I added will likely be removed soon so it is better to correct the information and let more people know this truth before the sources become invalid and the information are challenged and removed.
- Actually there were also two scientific studies recently published indirectly showing tigers are predators on elephants, adults or calves, while lion prides are predators only on elephant calves. But I think they are beyond the scope of the articles.
- I still think its a little misleading, even the articles state that tigers killing adults are rare. With regards to the rhino, when the article describes a rhino killing, it says that a mother and her full grown cubs killed a rhino stuck in the mud. It makes me wonder how much of the other attacks where group attacks. I think we need more reliable sources on tigers killing adults. LittleJerry (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- It is unclear whether the tigers attacked a rhino making it eventually stuck in the mud or the rhino was already stuck in mud before the attack based on the source. And it is true that tigers generally do not attack adult rhinos that's why I didn't mention it in the talk but I combined both rhino and elephant in a single sentence to keeping it concise. However, there are far many more accounts on tigers attacking and killing adult elephants, at least far more than bears / crocodiles killing tigers. Elephants are not as dangerous as rhinos which are faster and more agile than elephants. I have some more better sources on tigers killing wild adult elephants. Although they can no longer be viewed online, they have been retrieved in many other sites and I think I can use these sources. And the source saying tigers were often able to kill hunters and elephants has another implication - you might think those elephants are tamed and are thus easy preys, but the fact is they are controlled by mahouts and with hunters on their back, making them more dangerous in this regard - hunters had weapons and without mahouts, wild elephants of any age, adult or young, in a group or alone, will just silently, swiftly and nervously flee from any sign of tigers (e.g. Tiger roar), while wild adult elephants will ignore lions when alone and react calmly and defensively when in a group with calves - they won't flee and stand group. And elephants will react offensively to signs of leopards (e.g. Leopard roar), preparing to attack and actively pursuit leopards. Scientific studies clearly proved so, and even if we assume those men ridden elephants were tamed and less dangerous, how could the tigers kill these tamed elephants if they lack experience of doing so before? An elephant with men on back appears very weird to any wild predator and most will avoid attacking it and it look like a weird new species. Only tigers are known to attack men ridden elephants, or to attack only the men on elephants, suggesting they are experienced with elephants and can tell they are two different species (men and elephants), not a new animal. BigCat82 (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Some more information for you. It may be hard to believe tigers prey occasionally on adult elephants as this is something a lion pride is unable to achieve. However, pound for pound, jaguars are slightly stronger than tigers, while pound for pound tigers are stronger than lions. Tigers attack elephants mainly by continuously hit-and-run approach, biting it, backing, and eventually wearing it down. The bite force quotient adjusted for body mass allometry (in a layman term, pound for pound) of a jaguar is 7.8% stronger than tigers, while that of tiger is 13.4% stronger than that of a lion. And since bengal tigers are 27% bigger than east african lions and 20% bigger than south african lions, that equates 36-44% difference in strength! Note we are talking about the bite force quotient which averages the bite forces taken from different regions of the jaws - carnassial teeth were also taken into account and the bite force difference in carnassial teeth are smaller than that in canine tips due to leverage, but we know in predation carnassial teeth are unless only the front teeth are being used in predation - so tigers can inflict even far more damage, more than 44% damage, to elephants than a lion can do in each bite. This explains why tigers can take down preys much larger than lions. In fact, the most common prey of tigers, sambar deers, are 40-60% heavier than the most common prey of lions, wildebeests. You can find all the above information in peer reviewed journals. On the other hands, that tigers do no hunt adult elephants is more the gut feeling and common sense of us rather than reality. I understand it's hard to believe but all reports and scientific studies proved it already. We should rely on evidence other than our gut feeling and common sense on this topic, do you agree? Thanks! BigCat82 (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Kentrosaurus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kentrosaurus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reid,iain james -- Reid,iain james (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Also having a look; will fix what I find. It would make life much easier if my suggestion re refs was followed.... 00:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Rodent phylogeny
Hi, I guess it's fairly clear that the phylogeny section needs more refs; I'm fairly happy with the rewritten prose at the top, and the new table which is now fully cited. The material on 'classification' is implicitly cited which might be ok for GA but not for FA. Basically the section needs a few new refs which discuss the issues of the classification of the group as a whole. Finally, the discussion of caviomorph phylogeny (yes, they are rodents after all) is pretty much ok and properly cited. I will basically not be available for some weeks now, which is why I'm letting you know all this. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rodent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Urban. 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) 08:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Kentrosaurus
The article Kentrosaurus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kentrosaurus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reid,iain james -- Reid,iain james (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Kentrosaurus references edit
Hi, I went to great lengths to make individual pages of large sources citable without duplicating references in the ref list. I did this because it was demanded that I add exact page citations for the Plateosaurus GA, and because repeated citations of the same work - just different pages in it - would otherwise lead to the same ref showing up twice, which is annoying. You removed those edits. May I as why? HMallison (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- You mean Paul (2010)? I was just following the tasks on the GA review. I asked for help with the parts about that source (like him apparently not normally listing previous classifications in his Princeton Guide to Dinosaurs) but didn't get anything so I did them myself. LittleJerry (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't talking about the content, but about the formatting of references. I put call-out to specific pages (in this case p. 233 of Paul 2010) into a separate list which then calls out the reference list. This way you can have the actual source (Paul 2010) once in the final list, and still call out various pages in it, or quotes from it, etc. all over the text.
- I'll just re-do them the way they were; it doesn't influence the content.
- WRT content: wikipedia has very weird and subjective criteria on what is a good source and what is shit. Paul (2010) as a source is in many respects no better than LOTR as far as dinosaurs as concerned. Still, people insist on using it. My replies came too late, it seems. HMallison (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- You mean Paul (2010)? I was just following the tasks on the GA review. I asked for help with the parts about that source (like him apparently not normally listing previous classifications in his Princeton Guide to Dinosaurs) but didn't get anything so I did them myself. LittleJerry (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Kentrosaurus
| On 9 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kentrosaurus, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Kentrosaurus (fossil K. aethiopicus pictured) had extensive osteodermal covering, forming very elongated spikes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kentrosaurus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Gatoclass (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Giraffe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Suspensory ligament. 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) 10:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Tiger striping pattern
Hello Jerry thanks for your message on my talk page. I will starting looking for the information you need and will get back to you asap. Thanks. BigCat82 (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
TFA
Quagga - precious again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Equus (genus)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Equus (genus) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Rodent
| On 15 August 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rodent, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that rodents are characterized by their continuously-growing, razor sharp incisors? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rodent. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- I will be away till Thursday so hope you can keep an eye on the FAC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Equus (genus)
The article Equus (genus) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Equus (genus) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Equus (genus) has been nominated for Did You Know
 | Hello, LittleJerry. Equus (genus), an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated for Did you know consideration to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 18:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
Tiger again
Hi man, this is the first time I don't agree with you lol. The reason I added Amur tigers preying on adult brown bears is that this fact is not known by most people. If you read different forums on carnivores, most would agree that tigers can only prey on young brown bear cubs. People holding this view surprisingly include biologists and zoologists until I quoted them the 2 sources. Many do know tigers (though very rarely) preying on adult elephants and rhinos but not on adult brown bears. The main reasons for this are probably because studies on Siberian tigers are not as extensive as the Bengal tigers and thus this fact is rarely mentioned in literatures and the fact that adult Ussuri brown bears on average are considerably larger than adult tigers (some approaching Kodiak bears in size) and thus people have a hard time imagining how a smaller predator preying on a bigger predator. Since tigers attacking adult elephants and adult rhinos are worth mentioning and the information is already in the article, I think we should also briefly mention tigers can take down adult brown bears as well since tiger predation on adult brown bears is more common than tiger predation on adult elephants but this fact is not as well known by the general public. What do you think? BigCat82 (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- As I already stated, it already mentions that they prey on bears and we don't need to specify that they are adults anymore than other prey are. The reason why we specify adult elephants and rhinos is because tiger normally prey on calves and rarely adults. This is not the case for the others. I don't see why you want to get into so much detail on tigers and bears. LittleJerry (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- The purpose of wikipedia is to spread correct knowledge and I just found most people including scientists who haven't looked into this topic in details generally think adult brown bears are immune to tiger attack, even after reading our tiger articles as they still assumed that particular sentence refers to brown bear cubs only. Of course you are completely right in an editors' point of view, but people tend to believe in what they want to believe so if we don't go to slightly more details, I'm afraid most readers will still believe tigers prey on brown bear cubs even if after reading our tiger article because we didn't explicitly say so and tigers preying on another bigger adult predator is beyond the imagination of most people. Besides I read most children, young adult books and online animal information sites (without quoting any sources of course) and they say brown bears have no natural enemy once reaching maturity due to their sheer sizes and they dominate every other predator species in their respective habitats blah blah blah... So I wish to correct one of the most frequently seen misconception rooted in most people mind since their childhood. If you don't agree I'm fine with that but I just think we can do a tad bit more here to clarify it. BigCat82 (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I still have to disagree. There's no reason to specify the age of the bears. Its redundant and what other people choose to believe is not our problem. LittleJerry (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I wish I can always ignore what other people choose to believe lol. I see many good editors have retired probably as a result of constant content disputes / vandalism on their hard work, and one will feel tired just to repeat the same procedures and complaints constantly to restore the articles. You have put tremendous efforts in improving lots of articles and it is hard to monitor each of them - a few clicks from vandals can jeopardize many hours of hard work and can remain undetected for months or even years in less popular articles. I don't know how long I will remain active but before I retire from Wikipedia I will keep patrolling and improving the articles as long as Wikipedia still have good editors around. BigCat82 (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Equus (genus)
| On 26 September 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Equus (genus), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the genus Equus became extinct in the Americas about 12,000 years ago and remained that way until the Conquistadors reintroduced it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Equus (genus). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Dinosaur
I recall you were interested in collaborating on another dinosaur article once? Was it Ankylosaurus? Are you still editing, or are you going on a break? FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Incredible that Apatosaurus was exploded right during the FAC. Researchers had 100 years to do it, and they chose that very month, hehe. I think we should wait for the "dust to settle" before nominating it again. If you're still here, Ankylosaurus still seems a lot more taxonomically safe. Perhaps IJReid is interested? There are no other ankylosaur FAs, by the way, and this one is probably the most famous taxon... FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk Sounds good. Again, I'm probably be a part timer. I think that Description and Paleobiology should be separated. LittleJerry (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- There is info about the tail club and armour that makes more sense under palaebiology, but I guess the purely descriptive parts about these should stay under description? FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk I think most of the armor and skull stuff could be in description but the stuff about the power of the tail swing is more paleobiology. Description deals with form while paleobiology deals with function. I think we'll need some more information on the latter. LittleJerry (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- There is info about the tail club and armour that makes more sense under palaebiology, but I guess the purely descriptive parts about these should stay under description? FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk Sounds good. Again, I'm probably be a part timer. I think that Description and Paleobiology should be separated. LittleJerry (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, can you send me the ANkylosaurus paper you got at the source request? I think I'll do the taxonomy/classification section. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, You'll have to email me first. I can't attach a file from Wiki. LittleJerry (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- The main problems I see with Ankylosaurus now are that some of the current article text is not fully supported by the sources (such as the etymology), so we probably have to rewrite/doublecheck all of it. Another thing is that there seems to be inconsistent citation style. Last, since this became a GA already in 2006, we can't submit it for GA review, even though it probably wouldn't even pass by today's GA standards. All problems we can surely fix, but it needs to be solid before FAC, then. It will only be my second nomination I haven't taken through GA first, but I guess you may have more experience with direct-to-FAC articles... FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk. I'm afraid I haven't. But anyway, do you think we'll need more sources? LittleJerry (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- I looked for sources yesterday, and I couldn't find much. Seems that Ankylosaurus itself went largely ignored by scientists through much of the 20th century, though it was was popular among the public. I've found some books (though incomplete) that could be used to expand some sections, this for palaeoecology:[12], and these for classification:[13][14] (I'll probably deal with those) You could perhaps use this detailed description of the teeth by Walter Coombs:[15] Other than that, most of what we need seems to be already cited in the article. The Carpenter paper may cite some other papers that could perhaps help (some other Coombs papers that briefly discuss Ankylosaurus elements), but he already synthesises a lot of the past findings. The final article would probably be about the length of Nigersaurus, if not longer. FunkMonk (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk. I'm afraid I haven't. But anyway, do you think we'll need more sources? LittleJerry (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- I've now squeezed out pretty much all I could about history, classification, and palaeoecology, so now only description and palaeobiology need to be written. I've listed the article for copy edit already[16], since it generally takes well over a months for this to happen once requested. Better let some of this time pass while we work, instead of having to wait two months after we've finished... FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, I'll look into some paleobiology tonight or tommorrow. Do you think the research on Euoplocephalus airflow could be mentioned here? LittleJerry (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ankylosaurus seems to have similar sinuses. As long as we make it clear, by for example mentioning the sinuses of Ankylosaurus and then saying how the feature is thought to have functioned in the related genus. But also, keep in mind which specimen number the studied Euoplocephalus skulls have. They might belong to one of the genera that have recently been revived... FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- It is. AMNH 5405 LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, given that most Ankylosaurus fossils have been found in the US and the genus was first described by an American, I think we should use American spelling. LittleJerry (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- It is. AMNH 5405 LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ankylosaurus seems to have similar sinuses. As long as we make it clear, by for example mentioning the sinuses of Ankylosaurus and then saying how the feature is thought to have functioned in the related genus. But also, keep in mind which specimen number the studied Euoplocephalus skulls have. They might belong to one of the genera that have recently been revived... FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, I'll look into some paleobiology tonight or tommorrow. Do you think the research on Euoplocephalus airflow could be mentioned here? LittleJerry (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'll look them over tonight. LittleJerry (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, I can't access the first one. LittleJerry (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Weird, but now I've sent it to your mail. I was thinking of requesting an internal peer review at the dinosaur project once we're done, since we can't get a second GA review anyway. I can take care of the intro, seems the description and palaeobiology sections are quite some mouthfuls. When you get to it, it may be worthy to note that Carpenter's suggested plate arrangement is "just" his hypothesis, I've seen other researchers disagreeing with it, though only in blog posts. FunkMonk (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- By the way, which term do you think we should use throughout, "armor plates" or "osteoderms"? The sources are inconsistent. FunkMonk (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'd prefer osteoderms. LittleJerry (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, the description section already mentions plate arrangement, I'm focusing on how well they protected the animal in paleobiology. Its hard though to wade though all the technical language. You may what to look it over when I'm done. I feel like I may not have give the fore and hindlimb muscles justice. LittleJerry (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- No problem, I'll give it all a look once you're done, will probably add some bits and pieces. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, I think I'm pretty much done with paleobiology. Do you think we should use "ankylosaur" or "ankylosaurid"? LittleJerry (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think ankylosaur refers to the broader Ankylosauria, whereas ankylosaurid is specific for Ankylosauridae (and ankylosaurine for Ankylosaurinae). FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I think we should make that clear in the article. LittleJerry (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, don't think the sources say it specifically, though, so not sure how to cite it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- If you feel palaeobiology is done, I can take a second look of the sources now to see if I find anything that could be added. The Intro will probably be three paragraphs long, but I have not added much on description yet, since what's in the article now doesn't appear final. There is a PD image of some teeth and a diagram of the sinuses, wither of which could be added if we end up with more "space". FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, Okay go ahead. LittleJerry (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Done, now I only need to cover the Carpenter description, and Coombs' tooth description. Then I'll expand the intro and perhaps add some images, and we should be done. Could you perhaps add citation templates to some of the "bare" references and the likes? I really hate citation editing... FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Done, now I only need to cover the Carpenter description, and Coombs' tooth description. Then I'll expand the intro and perhaps add some images, and we should be done. Could you perhaps add citation templates to some of the "bare" references and the likes? I really hate citation editing... FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, Okay go ahead. LittleJerry (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- If you feel palaeobiology is done, I can take a second look of the sources now to see if I find anything that could be added. The Intro will probably be three paragraphs long, but I have not added much on description yet, since what's in the article now doesn't appear final. There is a PD image of some teeth and a diagram of the sinuses, wither of which could be added if we end up with more "space". FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, don't think the sources say it specifically, though, so not sure how to cite it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I think we should make that clear in the article. LittleJerry (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think ankylosaur refers to the broader Ankylosauria, whereas ankylosaurid is specific for Ankylosauridae (and ankylosaurine for Ankylosaurinae). FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, I think I'm pretty much done with paleobiology. Do you think we should use "ankylosaur" or "ankylosaurid"? LittleJerry (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- No problem, I'll give it all a look once you're done, will probably add some bits and pieces. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- By the way, which term do you think we should use throughout, "armor plates" or "osteoderms"? The sources are inconsistent. FunkMonk (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Weird, but now I've sent it to your mail. I was thinking of requesting an internal peer review at the dinosaur project once we're done, since we can't get a second GA review anyway. I can take care of the intro, seems the description and palaeobiology sections are quite some mouthfuls. When you get to it, it may be worthy to note that Carpenter's suggested plate arrangement is "just" his hypothesis, I've seen other researchers disagreeing with it, though only in blog posts. FunkMonk (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, I can't access the first one. LittleJerry (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'll be done with Ankylosaurus today (only need to finish armor description). After that, I guess we should proof read to make sure it is all American spelling. FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I think I'm finished cleaning up the references and formating. LittleJerry (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm done with the last stuff now, so all it needs is a few double checks.. I don't think I dare ask the cpy editor to look over the new text, he seems a bit diasatisfied...[21] FunkMonk (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Here's a draft for a FAC blurb: "This article is about one of the most famous dinosaurs, and the first member of its group of armored dinosaurs to be nominated for FAC. Only incomplete remains of this genus are known, and few scientific papers have been devoted to it, so the article mainly relies on a 2004 monograph, which is the most detailed account of the animal published so far. Some info has also been included from papers about the Ankylosauria suborder in general as well as closely related genera." FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, the copyeditor wouldn't get around until a couple days. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, I also think it should be noted that some of the information comes from studies of other species or ankylosaurs in general. LittleJerry (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think this is noted already, though? Some of the studies are also about ankylosaurs in general, which is noted as well when it is the case. I think the new sections under Palaeobiology are too short to be warranted though, but no biggie. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I meant in the FAC blurb. LittleJerry (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think this is noted already, though? Some of the studies are also about ankylosaurs in general, which is noted as well when it is the case. I think the new sections under Palaeobiology are too short to be warranted though, but no biggie. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, I also think it should be noted that some of the information comes from studies of other species or ankylosaurs in general. LittleJerry (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, the copyeditor wouldn't get around until a couple days. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Here's a draft for a FAC blurb: "This article is about one of the most famous dinosaurs, and the first member of its group of armored dinosaurs to be nominated for FAC. Only incomplete remains of this genus are known, and few scientific papers have been devoted to it, so the article mainly relies on a 2004 monograph, which is the most detailed account of the animal published so far. Some info has also been included from papers about the Ankylosauria suborder in general as well as closely related genera." FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Are we waiting for the copyeditor to return at this point? FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk He said he'll get to it tomorrow evening. LittleJerry (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Alright. I don't like when image placement is changed and text is snipped during copy edit, but I'll just change that later on. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm ready when you are. LittleJerry (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Cool, is he done? FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yep. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, should I just nominate it, then you can add your name? It'll probably take a while before we get comments, so we can do further proofreading during the wait. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ready to sign: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ankylosaurus/archive1 FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, should I just nominate it, then you can add your name? It'll probably take a while before we get comments, so we can do further proofreading during the wait. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yep. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Cool, is he done? FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm ready when you are. LittleJerry (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Alright. I don't like when image placement is changed and text is snipped during copy edit, but I'll just change that later on. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nice we already got some comments, I'll join in. By the way, this paper was just released, and it seems to affect all ankylosaurs, perhaps it warrants a mention under palaeobiology? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/zoj.12293/abstract "Ankylosaurs had reduced, slowly replacing teeth, as evidenced from dental histology, suggesting that they relied greatly on their tongues and hyobranchia for feeding." FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm on it. LittleJerry (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk. Added information in. I think you may what to look it over some. I can't find "paraglossal bone" for example. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, I think the problem is that they are using bird anatomy terms that do not necessarily have human analogues, and therefore don't have articles. Perhaps it would be worth requesting that paper to see if there is more interesting stuff? For example, the slow tooth replacement isn't currently featured in the Wiki article. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- We'll probably be asked to explain what it is. LittleJerry (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk Could you fix the part about the loops and sound? I couldn't find in the 2011paper why they think them being a reasonce chamber is plausible but maybe you will since your better at looking through techincal language. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Can you send it to me? FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- You can access the paper freely. Just click on the title. LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, nevermind. I got it. LittleJerry (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- You can access the paper freely. Just click on the title. LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Can you send it to me? FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk Could you fix the part about the loops and sound? I couldn't find in the 2011paper why they think them being a reasonce chamber is plausible but maybe you will since your better at looking through techincal language. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- We'll probably be asked to explain what it is. LittleJerry (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, I think the problem is that they are using bird anatomy terms that do not necessarily have human analogues, and therefore don't have articles. Perhaps it would be worth requesting that paper to see if there is more interesting stuff? For example, the slow tooth replacement isn't currently featured in the Wiki article. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk. Added information in. I think you may what to look it over some. I can't find "paraglossal bone" for example. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm on it. LittleJerry (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- On Smilodon, maybe you and IJReid should nominate Apatosaurus again first? I'm currently reading the sabertooth book, it's pretty good, if you can get it at a library or something, we can better synchronise our writing. The writer, Mauricio Antón (world's leading mammal paleoartist) also states that the sabertooth cat restorations by Charles R. Knight "have stood the test of time in a remarkable way, thanks to the rigor and beautiful simplicity of his working methology", so we can safely include them in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, this paper about ankylosaur classification just came out minutes ago, it is open access (will give it a look later): http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14772019.2015.1059985#abstract FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, IJReid and I won't renominate until September. LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, but maybe you should plan what Gilmore images you should use, and see if it even makes a big difference to the current article? With the current space in the article, I can't imagine more than two or three? Images are often replaced during an after nominations, isn't of much consequence. FunkMonk (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, IJReid and I won't renominate until September. LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- I will rework the taxonomy section of Smilodon sporadically in the coming time. FunkMonk (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. Is it okay if I work on paleobiology after you change the description section as I think certain parts of that section belong in paleobiology (e. g. the angle in which the cat can open its mouth). LittleJerry (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Some things to do, I'll merge the species list into the rest of the text, and instead have an evolution section. For this, a cladogram from this paper[22] would be nice, I'll ask IJReid about it. I've also broken up some other sections, to be more in line with other extinct mammal FAs. And another thing, what do you think about the taxobox image? The photo itself looks good aesthetically, but I'm not sure it shows the animal clearly (dark, not so sharp). I also think this restoration of S. populator[23] should be added when there is room, it is the best restoration of that species we have. I'll also add a collapsible synonym list as in Paraceratherium. FunkMonk (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with you on the taxbox image. I replaced it. I'll work on rearranging the paleobiology section later today or tommorrow. LittleJerry (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- As you suggested elsewhere, most in the skull and limbs section is not description but behaviour, so I've moved it down. Might need new titles. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, we'll have to use American spelling for this article too. Didn't you also do so for Columbian mammoth? LittleJerry (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- We can, but we don't have to see:[24] In any case, this animal is not unique to the US (same with the mammoth). By the way, I think each section of the article can probably be at least doubled, based on the text and references in the Sabertooth book. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know what English spellings South American countries use, but I think American English is appropriate since the animal has mostly been found in the La Brea Tar Pits. I hope thats okay with you. LittleJerry (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Fine with me, and feel free to fix it if you see me making any errors. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- I nominated this (high res version) image[25] for deletion because the uploader had other images where the background photo was copyrighted. But I was thinking now that if I paint out the potentially copyrighted background, it could maybe be useful anyway under social behaviour, as I did here:[26] What do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds okay. I don't think the mammoth/elephant is ideal, Smilodon seems to have mostly preyed on bison. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- After having read almost the entire sabertooth book, this warrants a further comment. Antón points out that there were no bisons in South America, so S. populator would have had a different diet than S. fatalis, including elephants (though S. fatalis would also have fed on young elephants). So we should be sure that we are not too S. fatalis-centric. FunkMonk (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, will fix it later today, I do think there's some evidence of elephant hunting, in any case, the image is nice for showing several individuals. By the way, I'd really like some kind of image of S. gracilis, but it seems to be very little known, though I guess there might be some diagrams in Cope's original description. Will have to find that one... Know what the citation is? FunkMonk (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, Maybe this?
- Thanks, sadly no image of the specimen (which seems to be a scrap of tooth), but I'll cite the paper anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think we should continue this conversation at the Smilodon TalkPage. LittleJerry (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, sadly no image of the specimen (which seems to be a scrap of tooth), but I'll cite the paper anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds okay. I don't think the mammoth/elephant is ideal, Smilodon seems to have mostly preyed on bison. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- I nominated this (high res version) image[25] for deletion because the uploader had other images where the background photo was copyrighted. But I was thinking now that if I paint out the potentially copyrighted background, it could maybe be useful anyway under social behaviour, as I did here:[26] What do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Fine with me, and feel free to fix it if you see me making any errors. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know what English spellings South American countries use, but I think American English is appropriate since the animal has mostly been found in the La Brea Tar Pits. I hope thats okay with you. LittleJerry (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- We can, but we don't have to see:[24] In any case, this animal is not unique to the US (same with the mammoth). By the way, I think each section of the article can probably be at least doubled, based on the text and references in the Sabertooth book. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, we'll have to use American spelling for this article too. Didn't you also do so for Columbian mammoth? LittleJerry (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- As you suggested elsewhere, most in the skull and limbs section is not description but behaviour, so I've moved it down. Might need new titles. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with you on the taxbox image. I replaced it. I'll work on rearranging the paleobiology section later today or tommorrow. LittleJerry (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Today's Featured Article: Notification
This is to inform you that Tammar wallaby, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 3 December 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Precious again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
TFAR
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Rodent --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Rather than putting an unexplained alternative version on the TFAR page, you should discuss variations in the blurb with Dank, when the article is scheduled. I thought it was some glitch in the system. Don't bother about it now, though, as the article will be scheduled in the next 24 hours or so. Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
TFAR
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Pinniped - that was fast ;) - top of this page looks strange ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks LittleJerry (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Looks good, precious again, - a service of WP:QAI ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks LittleJerry (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Kentrosaurus diagram
Hi there. I've noticed that you requested a scale diagram from Dinoguy. However, File:Paranthodon scale.png is actually the right size for Kentrosaurus, and the stegosaur silhouette is of Kentrosaurus. I was wondering if you would like me to rename it on commons for usage on the Kentrosaurus page, as I am creating a new version for Paranthodon anyways. If not, ok, I will then just overwrite it with the new version. IJReid discuss 21:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- IJReid, okay. LittleJerry (talk)
- So you would like me to rename it? IJReid discuss 21:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, go ahead. LittleJerry (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- So you would like me to rename it? IJReid discuss 21:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
EMU FAC
Did you have any more points you wanted to raise at the Emu FAC? I'm hoping the review will wind up before long so that I can nominate something else. 13:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Cwmhiraeth (talk)
- Not really. I mostly focus on images and sources when doing FAC reviews. LittleJerry (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your contribution. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not really. I mostly focus on images and sources when doing FAC reviews. LittleJerry (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 14 September
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 Jaguar page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter 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) 00:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Striped skunk
I could do, though I'll need to find some references first. Any suggestions? Preferably not amateur animal websites. Mariomassone (talk) 07:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Never mind, I've already started. Mariomassone (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- That would be great. Mariomassone (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Kong contentment
Still itching too much not to scratch again, I decided to give it one more shot and try out "gorilla-like ape" as a reasonable compromise that avoids the controversial straight "gorilla" ID, even though it adds to the already slightly over-the-limit plot summary word count. I was very pleasantly surprised to find that you had exactly the same idea and beat me to it. Happy editing! 66.81.222.178 (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
P.S. As a token of appreciation, herewith a useful little tip to cure the annoying floating-references problem now apparent just under this section: add "reflist-talk" in double curly brackets at the end of the relevant section and the refs will then appear in a neat dashed box in that location. 66.81.222.178 (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Section "P. o. palustris in the Pantanal" in the article "Jaguar"
Hello,
Can you please move the photos and information, in the section "P. o. palustris in the Pantanal", in the article 'Jaguar', to the article "Pantanal jaguar"? Moreover, can you please add a link to the article "Pantanal jaguar", in the sentence "P. o. palustris (the largest subspecies, weighing more than 135 kg or 300 lb):[26] The Pantanal regions of Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil, along the Paraguay River into Paraguay and northeastern Argentina", in the section "Geographical variation", in the article "Jaguar"?
Thank you Leo1pard (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited South American sea lion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lek. 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) 10:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
This dispute case can be found at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Jesus. This notice has been sent to you by Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy Christmas!
|
Happy Christmas! | |
| Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas
Know we have different ideas about who Jesus was, but I hope you had a merry Christmas. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- You don't know what my ideas about Jesus are, but thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
c*mpr*sed *f
I see you've been "corrected" by the super-pedant extraordinaire. Who isn't even right, but who are we to think so. I did enjoy the Guardian article, though. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Seems to have been a spree:[27] FunkMonk (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, he does it every day. Maybe he doesn't realize he's on camera. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Teleost, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guppies. 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) 09:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Stegosaurus intro
I'm working on smoothing out the lede now, but is there anything you think is currently omitted that should be included? Although short, I'm not sure what else from the main article we need to summarize there. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I guess you already did a good job. Maybe you could expand the first paragraph with some info on the species? LittleJerry (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Teleost you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
administrators' noticeboard/incidents: Jesus page
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Let's hope we can finally reach consensus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The article Teleost you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Teleost for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
TFA
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Stegoceras
I think I can get moving soon, just got back into writing at bluebuck... So should we do the usual, I start with history/classification, you take paleobiology, and we both add stuff to description? By the way, your talk page is getting awfully long, considered archiving it? FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- @FunkMonk: Okay then. As for my talkpage. I don't know how to archive. LittleJerry (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Wow, didn't realise how many papers have been devoted to this dinosaur... Seems you have some that I can't find, do you have Suess, H-D.; Galton, P. (1987) paper? FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I left a link at your talk page. LittleJerry (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, haha, I'm not too used to Researchgate, I only had some useless html after downloading from the link, so I thought the link had expired! But I see you actually have to do do it from the page itself, so downloading now, thanks. And by the way, I've added some more citations to the article, perhaps some of them you don't have... FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Strange, it still fails downloading, though I can see it on the link page... Did you manage to download it all? FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. I send a file to your email. LittleJerry (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! I now have almost everything written about this guy... Anything in the literature list you need? FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Still waiting for the article I requested. Can we continue on your talkpage? LittleJerry (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! I now have almost everything written about this guy... Anything in the literature list you need? FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. I send a file to your email. LittleJerry (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Strange, it still fails downloading, though I can see it on the link page... Did you manage to download it all? FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, haha, I'm not too used to Researchgate, I only had some useless html after downloading from the link, so I thought the link had expired! But I see you actually have to do do it from the page itself, so downloading now, thanks. And by the way, I've added some more citations to the article, perhaps some of them you don't have... FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I left a link at your talk page. LittleJerry (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 6 June
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 Stegoceras page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter 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) 00:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
| |
| giraffe | |
|---|---|
| ... you were recipient no. 194 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for Smilodon, one of the best known prehistoric mammals, and the best known saber-toothed cat! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for Apatosaurus, a "sauropod commonly associated with but separate from Brontosaurus"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for Ankylosaurus, "one of the most famous dinosaurs"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you today for the black mamba, an article with a checquered history, also an article "that kids like to stick superlative facts in (eagles, most poisonous snakes, supergiant stars) at a "stable version" type level to deal with future arguments."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Seven years! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
FAC voluntary mentoring scheme
During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.
Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| For this. Simply beautiful. Airplaneman ✈ 18:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC) |
Noms
I'd have thought the other two of us would also be co-noms? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Chiswick Chap: I thought you guys would add your names like we did before. LittleJerry (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
A page you started (Roar (vocalization)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Roar (vocalization), LittleJerry!
Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Wow, interesting and good topic for an article! I've added three extra sources from Google Books which all look quite interesting in their own right.
To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Hello - I didn't want to template an experienced editor for an apparent cut-paste page move, so here's a quick note instead. If I made a mistake, please let me know. Thanks. --Dstone66 (talk) (contribs) 06:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 19 September
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 Roar (vocalization) page, your edit caused a PMC 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) 00:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roar (vocalization), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rostrum. 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) 11:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Culture
Hi, I'm a little upset by your recent and now repeated comments on the place of living things such as mammals in culture. We have collaborated over the years on numerous articles, and I would have expected you to be collegiate if not comradely. If I have done anything to offend you, tell me, by email if you like, and I will do what I can to make amends. On the substantive question of the role of mammals in culture, there is surely no doubt at all that they have been extremely important to humankind throughout recorded history and beyond: indeed, the main things shown in the earliest art that exists such as in the Lascaux cave paintings is predominantly of mammals. Why would you be against this? I am both sorry and surprised, and hope to hear what it is that is troubling you. Your wiki-colleague, Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, LittleJerry. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 14 December
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 Grasshopper page, your edit caused a DOI 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) 00:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Happy Christmas!
A very Happy Christmas and a restful Wikibreak!
Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Pinniped Edit
You reverted a change I made that was to remove a vandal edit. Please take a peek at it | here. After your change, the grammar is not right (" With the the Japanese sea lion...".
If you think the version I restored was wrong, please drop me a note. Otherwise, I'm not going to revert your edit back, but leave that to you. I don't want to provoke a back-and-forth.
Anyways, Happy Editing!
KNHaw (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Bear has been nominated for Did You Know
Hello, LittleJerry. Bear, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
DYK for Bear
On 22 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bear, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that bears are classified as carnivores, but most are omnivorous and the panda (pictured) is almost entirely vegetarian? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bear. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bear), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Mifter (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thylacosmilus
Hi, I'm thinking of working on Thylacosmilus soon, and given our collaboration on the similar Smilodon, you're of course welcome to join if you want. I want to use the book I acquired for the old article for more than just that... And the literature on Thylacosmilus doesn't seem so extensive and confusing either. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm not familiar with the animal and I'm not sure if I can get into it. As of now, I plan on Octopus being my last FAC. However, if you decide to do another iconic prehistoric animal or dinosaur, I might reconsider. I may find iconic sauropods like Brachiosaurus or Camarasaurus (both macronarian rather than diplodocoid sauropods) tempting. In the meantime would you have the time to GA review octopus or one of Chiswick Chap's other articles? LittleJerry (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Awww, your last? I've been thinking of Brachiosaurus too, it's much less taxonomically messy (though we'd have to be careful about using sources specifically about the split-off Giraffatitan/B. brancai) than Camarasaurus (more species, more specimens), and of course much more famous... HMallison was working on the article some years ago, maybe he wants to add something. And yeah, I'd been thinking of reviewing octopus, might do it some time this week (unless someone beats me). FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm not familiar with the animal and I'm not sure if I can get into it. As of now, I plan on Octopus being my last FAC. However, if you decide to do another iconic prehistoric animal or dinosaur, I might reconsider. I may find iconic sauropods like Brachiosaurus or Camarasaurus (both macronarian rather than diplodocoid sauropods) tempting. In the meantime would you have the time to GA review octopus or one of Chiswick Chap's other articles? LittleJerry (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Octopus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The article Octopus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Octopus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
As food
Hi, "As food" was better. "Consumption" is both a big word that does the work of a short one, only less well; and it means tuberculosis, an unfortunate overtone to say the least. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- I changed it due to the FAC request. LittleJerry (talk)
Notice of Edit Warring on Lion page
Hello. You appear to have made some reverts lately on Lion. Please be aware that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts on a single page within a 24 hour period. Rather than reverting edits, please consider using the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. The dispute resolution processes may also help. Excessive reverting may result in a loss of editing privileges. Greedo8 14:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Greedo, you've made a mistake. I did one revert on the 2nd and one on the 9th. There was no edit warring, especially since the texts reverted were different. LittleJerry (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Teleost scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Teleost article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 2 August 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, always learning! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:LittleJerry reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: ). Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Edit warring at Caelifera
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
RE: striped skunk
May take a while. I'm going abroad in a few hours. Mariomassone (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello there!
Hi! I saw you around a lot on mammals, so I was wondering if you would like to pick up the Forrest's pika for a GAR? However, due to any reason if you are unable to, that would be fine too! I hope you have a great rest of the day! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- Adityavagarwa no thanks. It doesn't interest me. LittleJerry (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Reversion/Removal of Crocs Vs. Gators Section
Hi there, Please discuss.Mikalra (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Ankylosaurus scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Ankylosaurus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 22 October 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 22, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Quarter Million Award
Your joint work with Funkmonk is further recognised! William Harris • (talk) • 08:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
| This editor won the Quarter Million Award for bringing Smilodon to Featured Article status. |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bat you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The article Bat you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bat for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Belated MA for Octopus
|
|
The Million Award |
| For your contributions to bring Octopus (estimated annual readership: 1,250,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! – Rhinopias (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC) |
If you're interested...
I have an idea for a cleanup collaboration. There was an editor who was very interested in snake articles, among them Black mamba, and was banned for socking and pushing POV on snake articles. The black mamba article looks to be in good shape (and was promoted to GA), but I did find some issue with sourcing (I think left from that editor). In essence, it needs a good going over to ensure that the material cited by references actually matches up with those references, cut back on some flowery language and scour the net for more material. There are no snake FAs and I am wondering whether this will end up being light or very heavy work. Are you interested in co-nomming it for FAC (we can check sourcing section by section)? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'll have to think about it. I'm already working on bat and Elasmosaurus. LittleJerry (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Bat has been nominated for Did You Know
Hello, LittleJerry. Bat, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Multiple coverage of echolocation in Bat
You'll see there's a discussion of this on the talk page. I believe this is Dunkleosteus's bit? We'd best fix it as it'll only cause a fuss later. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Then we better ping him. LittleJerry (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
DYK for Bat
On 25 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bat, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the diets of different species of bat include frogs, fish, other bats, nectar, and blood? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bat. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bat), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
"Mortality"
I really don't agree with this choice of heading here, and I am deeply disappointed in your willingness to reinstate it after an explained revert, in editwarring fashion. This should have been taken to the talk page, at the very least. Many natural history articles have a Predators, parasites and diseases section. I can't say I like the loss of all three subsection headings, either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, LittleJerry. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Ankylosaurus scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Ankylosaurus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 15, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 15, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Percentages in Bat
Hi, not sure what we want to do about Tim's percentages? He prefers "%" despite the MoS. Needs answering, anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Seems to have settled down, he reverted himself. I shall be away now for the holiday, so Happy Christmas! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Ankylosaurus
 | Hello, LittleJerry. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Ankylosaurus at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! – Corinne (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC) |
Roosting
- Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Stegoceras scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Stegoceras has been scheduled as today's featured article for 26 February 2018. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 26, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frog, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moche (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Franklin D. Roosevelt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fascist Italy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Octopus scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Octopus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 30, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 30, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for today's octopus, one of the most intelligent invertebrates, rivaled only by other cephalopods"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Lion
| Hello, LittleJerry. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Lion at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! This is a long article and may take me up to a week to copy-edit; please be patient. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 01:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC) |
- Hi LittleJerry; I've added subsections to the Cultural depictions section and done my best to improve the text there, but I think it needs less detail; perhaps a four-or-five paragraph summary on the subject and a link to the main article would suffice. I also removed the empty "Notes" section as redundant; feel free to replace it if you wish. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 01:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Black mamba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diurnal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Jaguar
I hope you see that I'm in no disagreement with the Jaguar being third largest. I'm merely trying to make sure the sources I found that are younger than Seymor also do not get removed because they are very reliable sources.Mcelite (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tiger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diurnal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Grasshopper scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Grasshopper has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 26 November 2018. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 26, 2018. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the article, done in collaboration! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Today, thank you for your share of Brachiosaurus, "one of the most iconic dinosaurs"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
your 2nd nomination
Hi LittleJerry: 
Great! that you won't give up on this one!! I noticed there are several #REDIRECT pages, namely Strength comparisons between lions and tigers, Schauenberg's index, Physical comparison of lions and tigers, Comparison of weights of lions and tigers and Comparison of skulls of lions and tigers. Can any of them be used for the same content that is now in the page you nominated for deletion?
Will you announce the nomination also on the tiger talk page, to reach more people? Cheers from BhagyaMani (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Article for WikiJournal?
We've worked on quite a few articles about famous extinct animals over the years, so I was wondering whether we should send one of them to the WikiJournal? I did that with Baryonyx some time ago, and am currently responding to peer review[29] from palaeontologists there. I think Ankylosaurus could be a good contender, as it is very complete and up to date (as well as one of the most famous dinosaurs). FunkMonk (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, I don't think I'll have the time or energy for that. I'm currently waiting for Casliber to finish black mamba for FAC. I also think we should focus on improving T-rex for now. LittleJerry (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know. Maybe. LittleJerry (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations!!
Congratulations for two successful AfD proposals!! — BhagyaMani (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Since the Tiger versus lion page is on my watchlist, I saw that you defend the synthesis template you placed there, and think it is indeed justified: see my recent addition to Tiger#Social_and_daily_activities. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, LittleJerry. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
First edit!
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, A 10 fireplane (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
A 10 fireplane (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I have gone over the venom section now. Wanna give it a last once-over before nominating? Also, I am in two minds about the poisoning of Danie Pienaar and whether it really adds anything. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- Casliber, Okay. Should we list it for copyedit? LittleJerry (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- I am just looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests to see what the timeline is on this. I've not really needed it before, but then again, the usual course is a thorough GA review and then having little content change. This was an unusual situation. I think maybe we can just ask a couple of people, which I will do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
GOCE c/e
| Hello, LittleJerry. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Black mamba at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 08:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)) |
Removal of citations in Lead of Primate
Hi LittleJerry, a short note from me to you regarding the above: I'm OK with the ref removal, since they are redundant to what is in the body of the article. But not for the reason you stated. I quote from WPMoS/Lead: "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."
How about if I restore the citations to the Lead where the material 1st appears, and delete them from the body of the article? Are you OK with that?
And thank you for your efforts toward this article: 65 edits, 6889 characters added since July 2013! As you may have noticed, I have been editing this article for 4 days...
Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- No. It is better that cites are used for the article. No cites in the lead is that set in stone but it is preferred for FAC. A FA should not have them. LittleJerry (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Austral season's greetings
|
Austral season's greetings |
| Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC) |
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Pan (genus) into Common chimpanzee. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Black mamba
See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Black_mamba/archive1#Initial_comments_by_Samsara - first query is from the books you have (I think). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Explanation of your reversion of my Lion edits
Thank you for you explanation of the above at BhagyaManiTalk. If you revert any additional edits of mine at Lion, I would appreciate a more detailed reason than "totally unnecessary". Do you know if there any WP guidelines for the titles and order of the sections for Species articles? If not, do you know who I should contact regarding creating a consensus for such guidelines? I would welcome collaborating with you regarding this if there are no guidelines. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- There's no written policy in stone but it is the standard for most species articles. Look at most of the FA animal articles. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I have started overhauling Eastern green mamba - already a GA. Given you have the books, thought this was another we could work together on to push over the FA line. Given the sourcing issues the banned editor had, we'll have to recheck everything though. Slowly working my way through the snake material. Western green mamba to follow....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Casliber, thanks but I have FA fatigue. Is it okay if I mail my books to you? I only needed then for the wiki, you can have them. I should point out that "Fitzsimmons' Snakes of Southern Africa" is not the same book I have. Its a different author. LittleJerry (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah no problem, email away. Thanks for your help to date Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- You can email me your mailing address. I can get to a Post Office that delivers internationally. LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah no problem, email away. Thanks for your help to date Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Casliber, thanks but I have FA fatigue. Is it okay if I mail my books to you? I only needed then for the wiki, you can have them. I should point out that "Fitzsimmons' Snakes of Southern Africa" is not the same book I have. Its a different author. LittleJerry (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Chimpanzee
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chimpanzee you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Chimpanzee
The article Chimpanzee you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chimpanzee for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- LittleJerry, sorry, I missed your ping from the GA1 page (not sure what happened there, I think I had 2 or 3 pings from different places) so this was the first I saw of the process, many apologies. Well done shepherding it through GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Chiswick Chap, that's okay and thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- LittleJerry, sorry, I missed your ping from the GA1 page (not sure what happened there, I think I had 2 or 3 pings from different places) so this was the first I saw of the process, many apologies. Well done shepherding it through GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Merger discussion for World Ocean
An article that you have been involved in editing—World Ocean—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Sdkb (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Plains zebra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mesic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 14:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Reminder
First, thank you for your work improving the coverage of animals. Just a reminder about WP:BRD (I see from previous posts on this page that you already know): Stefan Molyneux is a contentious article as well as subject to arbitration special sanctions about WP:BLP. Please make sure to discuss at its talk page instead of reinstating the challenged edit. Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 12:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Plains zebra
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Plains zebra you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Starsandwhales -- Starsandwhales (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Plains zebra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Plains zebra
The article Plains zebra you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:Plains zebra for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Starsandwhales -- Starsandwhales (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Starsandwhales: did you send me the wrong message? LittleJerry (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- This notification was done by a bot, based on me changing the talk page for Plains zebra. The talk page says I passed it, so I have no idea why this message was sent. Starsandwhales (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
European hare scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that European hare has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 11 August 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 11, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)/Archive %(counter)d | counter=1 | maxarchivesize=75K
| archiveheader=
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
| minthreadsleft=5 | minthreadstoarchive=2 }}
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Roy Bateman (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
|
|}
Re
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Did you need help with something? The Arbiter★★★ 15:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I want the name of a Category article changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ok. Which one did you want? The Arbiter★★★ 00:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- I want Category:Socialist Anarchism changed to Category:Social Anarchism. It is the more common name. Thank you LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think that I can move a category page. You might enlist some help from an admin, as moving category pages is a bit more complex than normal pages. I suggest you go talk to user:Arbitrarily0 for help. Cheers! The Arbiter★★★ 00:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- I want Category:Socialist Anarchism changed to Category:Social Anarchism. It is the more common name. Thank you LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Caution
Usually I would fire off a blanket warning using twinkle, however seeing as I have interacted with you recently I will take a Good Faith approach. It seems you have been editing a few articles without actually contributing further and adding information that is unsourced and poorly written. I hope you stick around to edit, I would suggest finding a user willing to adopt and assist you in becoming a more skilled user and help you understand some policys and procedures. Good luck ZooPro 08:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Which, articles? Have you seen what I've done to the Grevy's zebra article? LittleJerry (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes you have contributed some information to the article but for the 20+ edits in the history I am not sure it weighs up with the amount of actual "work" being done. I also have a feeling you also edit from an IP address and some of those edits concern me. I would like you to stick around however if I was you I would look into adoption. ZooPro 09:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
reply.
I can see that. Thanks for noticing that. Those images are considered bad images and are only allowed in certain places. What I recommend for you is to contact an administrator. Because sadly I am not one yet. I recommmend this user because he is the one I contacted to allow the main image on there. Good luck. − Jhenderson 777 15:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
GA nom for Mars (mythology)
Hi, LittleJerry, thanks for your note. This is probably silly, selfish, and inappropriate of me, but I wonder whether you'd consider withdrawing your GA nomination for Mars for now. I've been working on it, but would not like to feel pressured over the holidays to devote so much attention to it. There are several important sections missing, such as Mars' festivals and rituals, his sacrifices and prayers, his mythology in Latin literature and art (particularly the "Venus and Mars" motif). I'm currently working on a couple of related articles in order to be able to summarize these things clearly and concisely, but I would expect it to take a month or two of concerted effort. Is this bad form to ask? I do appreciate your nice remarks and interest. I just feel that it's premature to nominate an incomplete article for GA status. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, Happy New Year — which is not unrelated to Mars, since originally his month was the first. I haven't forgotten about our conversation on this, and will get back to Mars soon. A question came up at Talk:Pluto (mythology) that required triage, and as I tried to find the scholarship to answer it, the question grew more and more interesting to me. And so now I'm working on finishing one last section on Pluto before returning to Mars. Cheers, Cynwolfe (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Susceptible to flattery though I may be (and thanks), I don't foresee giving this much attention to other major deities anytime soon. Mars and Pluto intersect in a way that's congenial to sorting out some stuff about the Campus Martius and various rituals, games, and landmarks there, about which I did a number of small articles, with more to come. I might look at some aspects of Venus, Diana, and Juno. However, I've long been planning to make a concerted effort at Roman mythology, as has User:Haploidavey (who's done huge things with Ceres (mythology)), and hope to tackle that after Mars, though I also need to do some off-WP projects. Roman mythology is an important article with major weaknesses, and it's quite possible that in the course of that I'll want to do more for specific Roman gods. Best, Cynwolfe (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello LittleJerry, I note that you haven't edited the article Asian black bear and only a bit for Giraffe. Generally reviewers (like me) will find bits and pieces to fix before an article attains Good Article status. Are you willing and/or able to try and fix any issues which might arise with these articles? I post this as I'd hate to review and list a bunch of things and see nothing done about them. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, more likely the Giraffe article. LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
December 2010
Thank you for your suggestion regarding Red Kangaroo. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). ZooPro 01:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- I just think it could use a few more sources particulary in the ecology section. LittleJerry (talk) 05:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Fictional history of...
Hi, LittleJerry, and welcome to Wikipedia! I've seen you've been contributing well and generously to articles on mammals especially. Many people write about popular culture, but fewer can write knowledgeably about the sciences. I thank you for getting involved in what I believe to be one of today's most important educational projects.
I agree wholeheartedly that Fictional history of Spider-Man, Wolverine, etc. violate basic Wikipedia policies/guidelines. I think the recent deletion of Fictional history of the Green Goblin sets a precedent that we can cite, by pointing to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional history of Green Goblin. Every reason for deletion there is the same reason here.
I would support a deletion. Given the acrimony with editor Dream Focus there, it might seems like pouring salt in the wound, or "piling on" as they say in American football, were I to propose the deletion. I know that might sound overly solicitous, but it's important to foster a feeling of community and that no one "has it out" for anyone else. However, if someone else were to propose it, I would be happy to be one of many editors each weighing in.
I applaud you for being a relatively new editor who wants to work to improve Wikipedia in more than the usual ways. It's good to be working with you. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Seriously out of all those editors that tried to nominate those articles for deletion, it would take your nomination to actually get a delete. Congrats on that. − Jhenderson 777 23:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks LittleJerry (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Roman deities
Hi LittleJerry, and thanks for your note. I thoroughly agree that these topics need attention, but my own editing habits take me hither and yon – I'm all tangents, and haven't planned tackling the Big and often misleading Twelve in any systematic fashion – except maybe an occasional and irritable picking at blatant errors in their articles. Thing is, once I get stuck in I find it hard to stop, and then I end up with a overload of half-digested, half-finished stuff on my small plate. Anyhoo, I'm trying (and mostly failing) to cultivate a more disciplined seed-bed on the Aventine, and take it from there; thus the plebs and their cults – the so-called Aventine Triad, Bona Dea and others – I guess I might get around to Diana and Fortuna, sometime or other; probably also Bacchus. As to the others, Cynwolfe's doing a fabulous job on Mars (mythology). She might not be able to resist Juno. But then, she might. Oops, I see she's already posted here on the matter (see above). PS: and yes, Roman Mythology's a core article here; so's Religion in ancient Rome, of course. I daresay both will be much more easily nudged into shape once the deity potholes are filled, one at a time. So it seems to go. Regards, and Happy New year. Haploidavey (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Stolen body hypothesis AfD Debate
I've edited your AfD nom of Stolen body hypothesis; as it stood it probably never would have been noticed or closed except by people who explicitly visited the page. Not to be too annoying about process, because I believe this nomination to have been made in good faith, but if there is one time in Wikipedia when process is important, it's getting it right before *deleting an article*. Please use WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion in the future. SnowFire (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Grevy’s zebra
Hello LittleJerry. I see I need to explain why I tagged Grevy’s Zebra in the ways that I did:
(1) Regarding the {{Which?}} tags in section Taxonomy and naming: that section is not a lead section and is therefore not an appropriate place for easy generalities that will be covered later. If you want to stay with generalities at this stage and cover them later, you should at least insert "(see xxxx)" and provide xxxx with an anchor link. In any case, I can find no characteristics identified as "primitive" in the rest of the article (this is the only use of the word "primitive" in the whole article) and no comparison with the other zebras in the Behavior section. So "explained below" is hardly fair. I am therefore reverting this change. By the way, the statement "It was the first living zebra to emerge as a species" is unsourced.
(2) Regarding the {{clarify}} that I placed against the words "assimilate together": there appears to be nothing in the Wiktionary entry for "assimilate" that refers to anything that Zebras might do to one another. "Assimilate together" is nonsense. I suspect "associate together" may be what you meant, but it's up to you what you put. Notice that I used {{clarify}} not {{citation needed}}, so "not disputed" is not a relevant answer. I am also reverting this change.
(3) The Description section is no longer an unreferenced section, but the second half of it is still unreferenced and I imagine this could be an obstacle to the success of the GA review you have asked for. By the way, having a sequence of sentences each with the same reference is unnecessary and makes an article look fussy (and harder to edit). One at the end of the sequence of sentences (within one paragraph) is enough, unless they appear to conflict. (This explains why I removed several on Wednesday).
LittleJerry, I have to say that the copyedit I did on Wednesday was intended to help you towards the GA review that you are seeking. There was lot to edit and it took a large amount of time. I found your removal of the tags I put there, with irrelevant two-word dismissals and without seeking clarification from me as to why I put them there, to be very disappointing. I hope you will take them more seriously now I've explained them. --Stfg (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Okay then, I apologize. I'll get around to correcting them sometime. Thank you for your help. LittleJerry (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for that and for your note on my talk page. Also, thanks very much for all your hard work on this and other articles. No, I won't be doing a GA review as formal reviews are not what I do (and I probably have too much investment in Grevy's to do a fair and impartial review anyway). However, a couple more suggestions if I may:
- (1) The {{Which?}} template asks for more detail, not for more citation. The citations you added are good, for sure, but what the template really requests is to be told exactly which primitive characteristics and behaviours distinguish Grevy's from other zebras. This being an encyclopedia, not a textbook, the majority of readers won't have acccess to the references.
- (2) References on the web are more valuable, because more accessible, than those only available in print, so it's very desirable to give URLs where possible. For example, the Churcher paper (ref 7) is on the web. An easy way to find URLs is to Google a phrase from early in the paper. For example, if you Google "The skull of E. Grevyi has a relatively long rostrum" (from the 2nd paragraph of Churcher), you get just one link, and that's the one you need.
In this edit] you have undone work that I did without giving any explanation, creating this problem.
- First, you have re-introduced inconsistency in the capitalisation of Grevy's Zebra vs. Grevy's zebra. Please note what the MOS says about this. I notice that you have re-capitalised those that I changed to lower case but left intact those that were already in lower case. It is quite difficult not to draw the obvious conclusion from that. Likewise the plural. I think this is less clear, but Wiktionary gives only "zebras" as the plural. I was following that.
- Secondly, you have restored a grammatical error that I corrected, as well as introducing two new ones ("thoses" and making the Laikipia Plateau be the subject of both a singluar and a plural verb in the last sentence).
- Thirdly, you have restored the repetitious use of the same reference that I raised before. Actually, if you had discussed it in a collegiate way, I would readily have given in on that one. But you didn't.
- In this edit you have also, without comment, undone something by another editor whose recent contributions would at least justify an assumption of good faith.
I have thought hard about simply reverting the edit referred to, but decided not to for the time being. However, I am requesting you now to restore consistency and grammatical correctness to the article and in future to make proper use of edit summaries and talk pages whenever you feel the need to undo the work of other good-faith editors. --Stfg (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC).
- Thanks very much for undoing it. It's truly appreciated. The article will get there eventually. Best wishes --Stfg (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
New info/references
Hi Jerry, I can think about that. I do not know that topic well, but this type of suggestion leads to background thinking and one eventually picks up the information in time. So although not immediately, this can be done in time. I was of even aware of the need for improvements on that page for I had not even read it, so your suggestion certainly helps draw attention to it. Cheers History2007 (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Other wikis and their gods
Hi Jerry, and thanks for the note. In principle, I'm not against the idea. I've sometimes picked at corresponding articles in German, Italian and French wikipedias for the development of en-wiki articles on Roman religion; in particular, for sources, sometimes for structure: but seldom more than that. Compared to en-wiki, most non-en wikipedia articles on these topics are brief, even cursory, and the content usually comes without inline citation. That makes it very difficult to check against sources: and I always do that, even when something seems plausible rather than proven, because "plausible" can be simultaneously convincing and completely wrong. So rather than risk misinforming readers through my own misreading, I prefer to use English-language sources - French at a pinch; we've several bilingual editors who might be willing. I know we've a helpful Italian-English-speaking ally on the premises, interested in these topics.
However if you're suggesting using machine translations as a basis, then fixing the grammar as a basis for re-writing en-wiki articles, then I'd strongly advise against it. We'd be basing rewrites or additions on our own half-understanding or second-guessing of text that's based on sources we haven't read. Whoever does this sort of work should be able to grasp the meaning in both languages. Otherwise we might be imposing OR, SYN and who-knows-what on the reader, all with the most innocent and best of intentions. Of course, you might not be suggesting that at all.
Which particular articles did you mean, and on which wikipedia(s)? If you offer some links, we might discuss the particulars. Haploidavey (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick response, Jerry. I don't want to damp your enthusiasm, but I know from experience that this would be an enormous task. I personally feel that using this article as a basis would be far more difficult than rewriting - or rather, editing the English Hermes - based on English sources. Seeking confirmation of statements in under-cited articles is much, much harder than producing text that was based on scholarship in the first place: the former "puts the cart before the horse". And please note that the Portuguese article uses only some Anglophone scholarship: some passages have
it haslittle citation of any kind, in any language, in proportion to theirarticlelength. In some cases, more appropriate English-source references might be found but substantial passages are virtually uncited; some of the "notes and refs" section consists of image-links to wikimedia, so the article's less well-cited that it might seem at first glance. Still, are you fluent in Portuguese? Would you be able to offer a verbatim translation, vouch for its accuracy and deal with any queries on content? Haploidavey (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I can tell you now, (having been here before, and on several occasions) you're severely underestimating the difficulties involved in translation: I strongly suggest that you post a request for translation of the article into English, via Wikipedia's dedicated hub. It's called "Requests for translation" or somesuch; I've always had positive responses there, when asking for translation from Latin texts (and German, IIRC). We can take it from there. Haploidavey (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've never sought an entire page translation: but Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English seems the best place to go. Instructions are given on that page: just follow the same format as the requests already listed. I've rather a plateful to deal with elsewhere, and this is your idea, after all, so I'll leave it in your hands. Good luck! And just let me know when a translation's forthcoming. Haploidavey (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I've now put the en-wiki article Hermes on my watchlist. Haploidavey (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- And thanks for bringing the whole business to my attention. I'll copy the Portuguese article refs onto a user-page, and might use them to rewrite the en-Hermes at some point. I'm deeply Rome-wearied, so a rewrite might come soon, rather than later. 18:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Haploidavey (talk)
FAC withdrawn
I appreciate that you are acting in good faith, but it is best if featured articles are nominated by people who have worked closely on them. In this way, they can give reasoned replies to reviewers and be familiar enough with the sources to act on suggested improvements. Someone who has not worked on the article can not provide this input, so the nomination may continue until opposition to it becomes so overwhelming that the article is failed; this takes away time from reviewers. While the Polar bear article is of reasonable quality, it is not yet of featured quality, and principal contributors must be consulted before a nomination, as required in the featured article candidate instructions. --Andy Walsh (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Clayoquot (talk · contribs) was a big contributor and would be a good person to ask. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Review started
Hey mate, this is just a quick heads-up to let you know that I started the GA review for Grevy's zebra. The review page is located here. I look forward to working with you! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Roman gods
Thank you for your acknowledgement. Each god is such a big topic...For now I shall devote my efforts to my unfinished Sancus, besides of course Neptune.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Right-wing politics
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Right-wing politics. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. TFD (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
God of War III
Greetings. Rather than performing blind reverts, which is in fact edit warring, I'd prefer it if you discussed the issue first. Your edit is a tad too literal and actually unnecessary, as "driven back" sums things up nicely. Many thanks. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Stub equine articles
Hi LittleJerry! You've been doing great work on the Grevy's Zebra article; it looks like it's about to be awarded GA status - congratulations! I don't know how you normally choose the articles that you work on, but if you're interested, there are several stub equine articles that could use some help. They don't necessarily need to go all the way to GAN, or even to B-class, but it would be nice to get them out of stub territory. They are:
Don't know if you have any interest in these... If so, it's great; if not, no big deal. If you do end up working on them, post here or drop a note on my talk page and I can re-assess them, or feel free to do so yourself. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Iuno
I left a note on the talk page of the article. However the spelling indeed is not an issue to me...Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
You achieved it!
Hi LittleJerry, well done getting Grévy's Zebra to GA. You deserve 95% of the credit for it really. Thanks for handling today in the way that you did. Best regards, --Stfg (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
June 2011
In a recent edit to the page Red Kangaroo, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Pilot whale
Hi there; I've placed this article on hold for now. There are quite a few issues I've brought up in the review, but the articles is certainly well on its way to GA status. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Frickeg (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- The article is pretty much at GA standard now, but before I pass it I'd really like to see a little bit more in the "taxonomy" section. At the moment it describes in some detail the description of the short-finned pilot whale, but says nothing about the long-finned (which was actually described first) or the description of the genus itself, both of which I would say are fairly critical information here. Other than that the article is ready for GA. Frickeg (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- After: wow, we both posted on each other's talk pages at exactly the same time! Frickeg (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Pilot Whale GA
I just want to add my congratulations on getting the Pilot whale article to GA status. I wrote the Cuisine section, and I'm glad it didn't give you too much trouble. Good work. Boneyard90 (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, and thank you for keep the section well sourced. LittleJerry (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Good Article promotion
|
|
Congratulations! |
| Thanks for all the work you did in making Tammar Wallaby a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated.
In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk) |
Hello again! You'd mentioned you'd like to review an article, but could use a little assistance. Sure thing. Just pick an article in the long list at Wikipedia:Good article nominations (but make sure it's not one that someone else is already reviewing). For instance, under "biology and medicine", #8 is currently Tiger Shark. If that one interests you, there's a "(start review)" link that takes you to the screen where you would put a review. It autopopulates it with some templates and stuff, but you don't have to worry about that... just start your review below all that. I usually just say something like "I will read the article and review shortly", and then save. Then I read and start reviewing! Be sure to compare it to the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. If you need help, you can ask me, or better yet, ask one of the GA mentors and they'll be happy to help. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for starting the review of Tiger shark! I don't know if you're watching Talk:Tiger shark/GA2, but I left a few extra comments there. I hope they are helpful. – Quadell (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I just discovered that the nominator is suspected of being a sockpuppet, and might be blocked. If so, I'm willing to take over as nominator, if you'll still review. – Quadell (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks LittleJerry (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I think the sourcing of Tiger shark is formatted correctly now. – Quadell (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, again. LittleJerry (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Cut-and-paste moves
I noticed your recent attempt to move Tammar Wallaby to the sentence-case title Tammar wallaby. This was a bad move for several reasons. Firstly, it made that article's title inconsistent with other related articles (cf. Category:Macropods). Secondly, by cutting and pasting the wikitext, rather than using the move functionality, the article's history becomes separated from the article; the history has to be preserved for copyright reasons (see WP:CPM). If you wish to move the article, you will need the support of an administrator. In uncontroversial cases (I don't think this one would count unless there is overwhelming support for sentence-case naming of mammal articles), an admin can make the move straight away. In less clear-cut cases, you will have to go through the move requests procedure. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Birthdate ordering
Hi, i disagree with the ordering of Anarchism sidebar by the birth date, but let's leave it like that for now. However, if you feel strongly about that please also change Template:Anarchism otherwise we have the same information given in the different way depending on the template. Beta M (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Conservatism
Hi LittleJerry, as I said, you're welcome to broaden the scope of Wikiproject Conservatism, but your edits are reducing the scope. Instead of reducing the importance of the articles, why don't you add more articles you see as important? NYyankees51 (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Because your still giving imprantances to relatively unimportant figures. 19:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleJerry (talk • contribs) 15:39, July 22, 2011
- Not an important article for conservatism as a whole. LittleJerry (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- When you were told to use the talk pages, he meant discuss it at WikiProject Conservatism. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
3RR
Just letting you know, you're at WP:3RR on the Sean Hannity talk page. You've been reverted again, so please start discussing those changes before reverting. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- You appear to have violated WP:3RR at Talk:Sean Hannity; I have reported it here. Thanks, NYyankees51 (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Edit wars about importance ratings
You've been involved in some back-and-forth about importance ratings of articles from the point of view of conservatism. This has led to the 3RR case mentioned above, where you have apparently broken the WP:3RR rule on the rating of the Sean Hannity article. You may still be able to avoid sanctions if you will agree to wait for a general consensus before continuing to modify these importance ratings. If you agree, please respond at WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
- You broke WP:3RR at Talk:Sean Hannity. Then you continued to revert the importance rating at Talk:Bush tax cuts. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:LittleJerry reported by User:NYyankees51 (Result: 31h). EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I've been quietly watching the discussion at the WikiProject talk page, and I think that you have raised some valid points about the importance ratings. Please let me make some suggestions about how to stay on a better footing once you come back. First, I'd suggest focusing on project importance, and setting aside any actual removal of pages from the project. Second, and very importantly, don't edit war! Make a single edit, and if it's reverted, just let it go. Instead, comment about it on the Project talk page. If editors continue to treat the Project as only being about modern US politics, there will eventually be a case for WP:NPOVN, and perhaps for some dispute resolution. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Template:Conservatism
This is the most important template in conservatism. Don't you think it would be appropriate to discuss your changes on the talk page? Particularly in light of WP:BRD. I'm reverting your good faith efforts to improve the template pending your arguments on talk. – Lionel (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- What are you talking about. I did discuss it. LittleJerry (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Re: Sean Hannity importance rating: Just a reminder that it's best not to revert other editors acting in good faith. While 3 reverts in 24 hours is the normal limit, editors have been blocked for less. Please consider using WP:BRD instead. Will Beback talk 02:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, LittleJerry;
I don't mean to get after your work on Euoplocephalus, but the direct copies of the sources are a problem copyright-wise, which is why I returned it to an earlier version. I have no prejudice against including the information per se, as long as it's not written the same as the original source. J. Spencer (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- You could of at least did some fixes instead of simply reverting it. Some of the text, I don't know how to write it any other way. LittleJerry (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hello LittleJerry, long time no see. "I don't know how to write it any other way" isn't an excuse for copyvio, and if you can't think of a way, why do you think J. Spenser should manage to find a way? A way to handle such a difficulty would be to ask on the talk page, quoting the beginning and end of the passage with an ellipsis between them. That's not copyvio. HTH. --Stfg (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm finding more of this stuff in Carnotaurus ("The skull and lower jaws both have loose sutures between some bones which suggest a high level of cranial kinesis" here versus "both the skull and lower jaws have loose sutures between some bones that suggest a kinetic structure" in the source, "had more mobile joints than any other known dinosaur" here versus "presented much more mobile joints than the rest of the known dinosaurs" in the source, "can maintain an unchanging orientation of the eye with respect to prey" here versus "for maintaining an unchanging orientation of the eye with respect to prey" in the source, etc.). I did indeed fix Euoplocephalus, but I don't see that me going around behind you and fixing things is the optimal thing for either of us. J. Spencer (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- They are different enough from the source. At least the first two. LittleJerry (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- You might want to check with the group that works at the copyright noticeboard before you go too much farther. J. Spencer (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring at Template:Conservatism
Please see WP:AN3#User:LittleJerry reported by User:Lionelt (Result: ), where a complaint has been filed against you. Since you were previously blocked for edit warring just a few weeks ago, it would be sensible for you to reply at the noticeboard and promise to stop reverting until a consensus is found. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you declined to follow this advice. Since you've clearly been edit warring again on the template, I have blocked this account. As it is your second block for this on the same article, I have set the duration for 72 hours. Kuru (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
August 2011
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges.
Do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point – Lionel (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Right-wing socialism
It is a new article created by User:R-41. I would like to see a reliable source that establishes it as a topic. I know that the term "socialism" has been used to describe various conservative policies, but would like to see a reliable source that discusses the concept. TFD (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Chasmosaurus
Hello, LittleJerry;
Thanks for the heads up! Here are a few old references that can be found online:
Hatcher, J.B., Marsh, O.C., and Lull, R.S. 1907. The Ceratopsia. Mongraphs of the United States Geological Survey 49. http://www.archive.org/details/TheCeratopsia and two copies on Google Books.
Lull, R.S. 1933. A revision of the Ceratopsia or horned dinosaurs. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Natural History 3(3), in a variety of formats at http://www.archive.org/details/revisionofcerato33lull
Two papers in the Ottawa Naturalist volume 27 by L.M. Lambe, http://www.archive.org/details/ottawanaturalist27otta:
On the fore-limb of a carnivorous dinosaur from the Belly River Formation of Alberta, and a new genus of Ceratopsia from the same horizon, with remarks on the integument of some Cretaceous herbivores. 27(10):129-135. [names Chasmosaurus as Protorosaurus (preoccupied)]
On Gryposaurus notabilis, a new genus and species of trachodont dinosaur from the Belly River Formation of Alberta, with a description of the skull of Chasmosaurus belli. 27(11):145-155. [renames Protorosaurus to Chasmosaurus]
Lambe, L. M. 1915. On Eoceratops canadensis, gen. nov., with remarks on other genera of Cretaceous horned dinosaurs. Canada Geological Survey, Museum Bulletin, 12, Geological Series, 24, p. 1-49. On Google Books here http://books.google.com/books?id=AWYuAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=%22eoceratops+canadensis%22&hl=en&ei=Vj15TsP-JaHL0QGE8YzMAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22eoceratops%20canadensis%22&f=false
[Another Google Books collection of Lambe's papers includes a 1904 description of the frill of "Monoclonius" canadensis, renamed in the 1915 paper: http://books.google.com/books?id=uX8uAAAAIAAJ&pg=PR20&dq=%22monoclonius+canadensis%22&hl=en&ei=ez95TtPbPITv0gG10q3lAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22monoclonius%20canadensis%22&f=false ]
J. Spencer (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
October 2011
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Kangaroo. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Re: some help
Hello, LittleJerry;
Sure, I'll give them a look in the next few days. J. Spencer (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- I had to get a copy of Ancient Marine Reptiles through interlibrary loan to work on Plesiosaurus. Don't worry, I hadn't forgotten! J. Spencer (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- That ought to do it. J. Spencer (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Southern Hairy-nosed Wombat
Hi LittleJerry,
I have undone your reversion of Southern Hairy-nosed Wombat which had reinstated the version by User: 96.35.124.13. While the article could certainly do with improvement, unfortunately User: 96.35.124.13's edits were riddled with faults, including poor spelling, grammatical errors and ill-judged stylistic changes. He also removed content and links particularly relevant to South Australian WP users, which are especially important considering this animal is the South Australian faunal emblem. Please take more care in future. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- It appears that parts of the texts are copied from word-for word from the source. I wish you would stop reverting. LittleJerry (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- They are not copyright violations, you're just using the alleged claim for your version which you need a consensus for. Cease your disruption and stop using your IP. Bidgee (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have the source. I'm the one who built the article. I'm trying to correct the mistake. LittleJerry (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- They are not copyright violations, you're just using the alleged claim for your version which you need a consensus for. Cease your disruption and stop using your IP. Bidgee (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
In a recent edit to the page Southern Hairy-nosed Wombat, you changed one or more words from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you and I apologize. I would make the nessessary grammar corrections. LittleJerry (talk) 11:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Talk page for Elephant
Please stop changing the importance rating of the Elephant article for the Mammals project. If you believe that the rating must be changed, then open a discussion on the talk page and wait to see what consensus develops. -- Donald Albury 11:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
You did not have a consensus to change the image in this article back in August when you edit-warred to do so, and you do not have a consensus now. Discuss it on the talk page, and if other editors agree with you, you can change the image, but since the current consensus is against you do not change the image again. Editing against consensus is disruptive, and disruptive editing can get you blocked -- so stop, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
FAC
I have removed your FAC for Emu (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emu/archive2); please read the FAC instructions and refrain from nominating articles without consulting significant contributors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- I consulted FunkMonk. LittleJerry (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a resounding endorsement that it's ready, particularly considering the mention of Casliber's to do list, but if you can get concurrence from Casliber that it's ready, I'll reinstate it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Littlejerry -I just logged on briefly - we need to do a lit.search. I can do this today as a priority in a few hours (am really busy now for a while). You want this to go well at FAC and not get hammered. Big articles need to be really prepped. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a resounding endorsement that it's ready, particularly considering the mention of Casliber's to do list, but if you can get concurrence from Casliber that it's ready, I'll reinstate it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll live this all to you. LittleJerry (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Aborigine is not an appropriate term to use to refer to Aboriginal Australians. See Appropriate Terminology There are many other problems:the prose reads as a series of short disconnected sentences in places; why five separate references for its size, it's hardly contentious; odd expressions such as "a nail on its toe akin to the blade of a knife" and "a type of camouflage similar to a small hill" (what sort of camouflage does a small hill use :-); way too many "also"s; and so on ... Marj (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Done. LittleJerry (talk) 05:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Spotted hyena article
Hi
I appreciate your help and encouragement, though I honestly don't know what the procedure of nominating an article for FA or GA is. I'm waiting to recieve a book on the etymology (i.e. the origin of the term "Tiger Wolf" and "Crocuta" etc.) and evolution of hyaenids before I publish the article.Mariomassone (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Giraffe copyedit
Hello LittleJerry. I'm going to pick up your request on the GOCE page for a copy edit of Giraffe. This will require a {{GOCEinuse}} tag to be put on the page for about 24-36 hours to protect me from edit conflicts. The article's history page is showing quite a lot of activity right now. Is this a convenient time for me to dive in or would you rather I waited? Best, --Stfg (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Skunks
It would be interesting to do work on skunk articles, but I don't think I have the proper literature to reference them. I have books mentioning skunks, but only in passing. The main reason why I edited the hyena article was because I have literature actually on the species in question.Mariomassone (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Images in Giraffe
Hi, sorry I forgot to mention this before. Giraffe has most of its images on the right, and a few cases of text squashed between a pair of images. This might harm the case for FA because of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Location. I'm not very good at layout, so I didn't want to touch this. Best, --Stfg (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Reversion in giraffe
LittleGerry, why did you do this reversion of a copy edit I did yesterday? That use of "likely" is colloquial, and those commas are correct.
Also, please note that reverting someone with no edit summary at all is considered an implicit accusation of vandalism. --Stfg (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't remember doing that. I apologize. LittleJerry (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Black Mamba Review
First, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to review the article which I nominated. I am the main editor of the black mamba article and as mentioned, I am the editor who nominated the article for GA status. I have taken your suggestions and will do the best I can to improve the article so that it can attain GA status. You asked for all book cites to have an ISBN # and I completely agree, however, some very old books from before 1900 don't seem to have any sort of ISBN #. I have looked long and hard for an ISBN to these books, but I just couldn't get anything. One example of such is reference #12 (Boulenger, G.A. 1896. Catalogue of the Snakes in the British Museum (Natural History), Volume III. ASIN: B004II92FO. London. p. 437.). The best I can do was find an "ASIN" number for reference #12. Another one with the exact same problem is reference #14 (Günther, A. (1864). Report on a Collection of Reptiles and Fishes made by Dr. Kirk in the Zambesi and Nyassa Regions. 1864. London, England: Proc. Zool. Soc. London. pp. 303–314.). I couldn't find any sort of ISBN number for this either. Günther, A was actually the first scientist to describe the black mamba, just for your information. I even considered that they may be journal articles, but they don't have doi #'s or a pmid # or any sort of number. Everything else you asked me to do is no problem. Also that sub-adult lion was in fact bit and killed by that black mamba. I just have to link the second video, which I forgot to do (it's a 2 part video, but the videos are part of a large series of videos of a black mamba documentary). In anycase, I will continue to communicate with you and hope you communicate with me so that together we can make the black mamba article a GA status article. Cheers! Bastian (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Did a lot of the work you asked to be done. I think there is still some stuff left undone, but I will definitely finish all of it. Bastian (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Don't forgot to put a check near the tasks you did. LittleJerry (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Removal of wikiproject boxes from Adolf Hitler
Hi, LittleJerry. I see you have been removing two wikiproject banners from the talk page of the Adolf Hitler article. These banners are placed by the wikiprojects, and not by the editors of the article. If the people running these wikiprojects feel the article is of interest to them, they will place the banner. If you disagree with their selections, it is better to take it up with the two wikiprojects involved. Please don't remove the banners any more without a clearer reason to do so. Thank you. --Dianna (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- It was added by a user who is not a member of either project. LittleJerry (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Black Mamba GA Review
Sorry I've been gone for a few days, I've just been really busy with work (I work in the medical field in a hospital, so very hectic hours) and haven't had time to check this out. I have put the check marks next to the items which I completed and I've also crossed them out. There is still some work to be done and I will have it done, no doubt. The three on top that haven't been crossed out or check marked still got to be done also. Check it out Black Mamba GA Review. Bastian (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I just spent the last few hours fixing what you asked to be fixed and I think I'm done. However, if you see other issues let me know and I will continue to work hard to bring it up to par. The material is objective and scientifically accurate, the only problem is the formatting of the references/citations (which I think I have taken care of fully, but I'll let you be the judge). The other issue is wording and jumbled up sentences, which I also have taken care of. So I think I am done, but I'll let you judge. Bastian (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for passing the article. I put in a lot of hours of hard work, mind-boggling amount of research, and many sleepless nights trying to take the Black mamba article from what it was (a stub) to what it is now - a good article. Thank you very much for recognizing the work I did on that article. There were others that helped along the way, so kudos to them too, but truth be told, I did over 98% of the work on the article. Again, thank you very much. :) Bastian (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I have several different snake articles which I am going to work on and the King cobra is one of them. There are a lot of prominent and well known snakes that have very poorly written articles, which is just a shame. I already created two articles of very common snakes that didn't previously have an article - one was the Jameson's mamba and the other was the Coastal taipan. I was astonished that nobody had cared to make articles for those tow snakes. But anyways, yes the king cobra article will probably be my next project. Bastian (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Lopping?
Hi. I don't understand "lops" in Giraffe#Anatomy and morphology, and wiktionary hasn't helped me. Nor has the entry in the Online Etymology Dictionary that wiktionary points to. Is there an alternative way of saying it? --Stfg (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- The source uses "looping". I did some changes. LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Re:Vampire bat CE
Message added 00:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Common Vampire Bat, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Cardiac notch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Some falafel for you!
|
|
For your work on Common vampire bat which is now a good article – nom nom. Braincricket (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Giraffe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enamel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
New CE for Giraffe
Hi. I've been through it again as you requested. The last 5 weeks didn't do it any real harm in fact, just typos. I've taken the chance to improve a little on what I did before. Good luck with the resubmission. --Stfg (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- No worries. I've made a couple of changes to your latest edit, which I should explain. (A) I removed "also" from "Giraffes also lack dewclaws" because the paragraph doesn't say that they lack anything else. I know that you meant also in the sense of "as well as what has just been said", but it's padding, and undesirable. (B) "The pelvis is shorter in the giraffe than in most other ruminants with the ilium having more expanded upper ends." This construction of "with"+<noun>+"...-ing" is one you use a lot, but it's not wonderful and it does get picked on by some reviewers. You might like to have a look at User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing. Best, --Stfg (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Capybara GA Nom
I might start a review on your nomination of the Capybara article. Do you have an e-mail address where I can contact you privately? Bastian (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- I finished the review and passed the article. Good job man! Interesting animal. I think you were the one who passed the article that I wrote and nominated, the Black mamba. Let me know when you are nominating animal articles, I enjoy doing animal article reviews. I'll let you know when I'm nominating an animal article also, though I'm more of a snake person. Bastian (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
January 2012
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Kangaroo
First, you can't prepare an article that's currently not even a GA for FA status. Second, you should discuss such a push on the article talk page. Third, your changing of reference format without prior discussion is specifically not allowed per WP:CITEVAR. For example, I cannot stand the format where there is a separation between references (where there's just a name and a page number) with a separate notes section with the full information. Yes, I am aware that this format is used in some other articles, including some FAs. But until you can get a consensus for that version, you can't change it. For me, I would far rather have a sensible referencing format (and I consider the version you're switching to to be not sensible) than to have the article get an arbitrary star in the top right corner. Furthermore, you're removing references without any specific explanation.
In sum, it's time for you to go to the article talk page and discuss the issues you want to change. Several editors have reverted you. It's time for discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
|
The Fauna Barnstar | |
| To LittleJerry, for the article "Giraffe". Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Giraffe
Why are you so concerned with the template not saying "journal"? Template:Cite article redirects to Template:Cite news. Is Scientific American a newspaper, if you don't want to call it a journal? Sorry, but I just don't understand. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Because it isn't a journal, it's a popular magazine. LittleJerry (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm wondering if you know what you're doing. Now you changed it to "cite magazine" which redirects to "cite journal," with the result that it shows the volume in bold, as is customary for citing scientific journals. And why have a redirect for a template if the final result is the same--namely, that you're citing in the style in which a journal is cited? Now it looks like you are citing a journal which, if I understand you correctly, is precisely what you didn't want. I'm going to leave it alone, though it makes no sense: this is WP:LAME territory. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- If that's the case then I guess it doesn't matter. By the way, are you gonna review the article and take a position? LittleJerry (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, we generally try to avoid redirects. Every redirect takes up server time. As for review, how do you mean? Is it up for FA or so? Or is it listed for GAR? Oh, it's listed at FA, I see now. No, I wasn't planning on it. I'm not a biologist so copyedits and prose tweaks are the best I can do. I think it's a lot better than Capybara; the sourcing is stronger and the prose is better, and judging from the comments it's headed in the right direction. But spot-checking finds a couple of things--are you interested? I'll give you one: "summarized by David Brown for BBC News"--sounds like he's a reporter; replace with "told" and give a brief appositional note of who he is. Also, that [BBC reference needs to be properly templated: the author's name is missing as well as the date of publication. (This is an easy fix.) Also, I'd change the reflist formatting to display in two columns: change that colwidth to 30em or so. Good luck with it. I'll be glad to help if you want me to. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Re: this edit--I just looked at 54 FAs on animals, and only three had a citation in the heading. If it were up to me I'd remove them from those as well: it is unelegant and in my opinion unnecessary. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Like I said, its meant to confirm the information in the taxbox. Plus many mammal FAs have it. LittleJerry (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I know what you said and I know what you meant. I am telling you, it is redundant--utterly--and ugly, and possibly not even correct: the infobox has Least Concern, whereas the article has "low risk". Those may be the same thing, one way or another, but the fact remains--these are two different terms. Moreover, if you want to get technical about it, which I think you are doing, the infobox also contains a map, the contents of which are not verified in that article nor on the associated articles. For instance, tippelskirchi is located on the map, but Wilson & Reeder's doesn't offer a location for it, neither in the main article nor in the one for the subspecies. But I feel like I'm talking to myself. I added a note for David Brown (without context he's nobody and his comments hold no weight), and I'm going to leave it be. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is just foolish and incorrect. It is not "being" cited, at least not in this article. The reader has no fucking clue who the guy is unless they go down to the footnote, click on the reference, read the article, and then go back to see what they said. You may know giraffes, but there are things you don't know. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- The study is discussed and cited in the article. It states: genetic testing published in 2007 has been interpreted to show that there may be at least six species of giraffe that are reproductively isolated and do not interbreed, even though no natural obstacles, such as mountain ranges or impassable rivers, block their mutual access. The study deduced from genetic drift in nuclear and mitochondrial DNA that the two giraffe populations living closest to each other—the reticulated giraffe and the Maasai giraffe—separated genetically between 0.13 and 1.62 million years ago.[14] This the the same study that Brown is involved with and is discussed in the BBC article. LittleJerry (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- And why not mention his name in the article? Or, how is a reader supposed to infer that this is the guy who is responsible for the unnamed "genetic testing published in 2007" mentioned earlier without looking at the footnotes and extrapolating that "D" stands for "David"? This goes directly to readability. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- His name is mentioned. It still says: The implications of these findings for the conservation of giraffes were summarised by David Brown, lead author of the study, right after. LittleJerry (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- The study is discussed and cited in the article. It states: genetic testing published in 2007 has been interpreted to show that there may be at least six species of giraffe that are reproductively isolated and do not interbreed, even though no natural obstacles, such as mountain ranges or impassable rivers, block their mutual access. The study deduced from genetic drift in nuclear and mitochondrial DNA that the two giraffe populations living closest to each other—the reticulated giraffe and the Maasai giraffe—separated genetically between 0.13 and 1.62 million years ago.[14] This the the same study that Brown is involved with and is discussed in the BBC article. LittleJerry (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Like I said, its meant to confirm the information in the taxbox. Plus many mammal FAs have it. LittleJerry (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- If that's the case then I guess it doesn't matter. By the way, are you gonna review the article and take a position? LittleJerry (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm wondering if you know what you're doing. Now you changed it to "cite magazine" which redirects to "cite journal," with the result that it shows the volume in bold, as is customary for citing scientific journals. And why have a redirect for a template if the final result is the same--namely, that you're citing in the style in which a journal is cited? Now it looks like you are citing a journal which, if I understand you correctly, is precisely what you didn't want. I'm going to leave it alone, though it makes no sense: this is WP:LAME territory. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
<--The first oblique reference to the study appear to be "genetic testing published in 2007." That could be anything--it's not identified by author, medium, or even whether it's a book or an article. If that were made clear, then the next reference, "The study deduced from genetic drift in nuclear and mitochondrial DNA..." is clearly identifiable as identical to the earlier "genetic testing published" and the later "the study" by Brown--which, by the way, I added: you're welcome. Why you obstinately resist identifying the study, the title, the publication title, whatever, is a mystery to me. What you need to understand is that if something is unclear to the reader, it's not always the reader's fault. I'm trying to help you and you're just arguing a moot point instead of taking some advice. If your prose had been clear, I wouldn't have added this earlier on in the paragraph, at the first mention. I don't think you realize what a huge difference it made that I added who Brown was, and you certainly seem completely resistant to input. The article does not belong to you, and as a Wikipedia editor I also have a stake in it. I'm not going to comment here anymore; this is pointless. You clearly don't want me editing the article, so I won't take this up with you again. Have a great day. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- LittleJerry, sorry I've been juggling about fifteen tasks on my plate. I'll take a look a bit later. Promise. Listen, you're doing agreat job tackling these big articles. Really. They are super hard and Lion took me ages so I know they are real gut-busters. I'll get there soon. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Casliber, and Drmies, all I did was remove (in bold): lead author of a 2007 study on giraffe subspecies published in BMC Biology. I felt it was redundant because we are introduced to the study earlier in the paragraph. LittleJerry (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Tammar Wallaby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pinna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Tammer Wallaby
Hello, LittleJerry;
Sorry I came in late, but you had the gist anyway. I tweaked the wording a bit. J. Spencer (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Two quick things
- Awesome work on Giraffe
- Mind if I redirect your userpage to your user talk page? I understand not wanting to bother filling it out, but the redlink makes you look like a newbie, not an awesome FA writer. :)
Cheers, Steven Walling • talk 04:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sure thanks and feel free to join in the FAC discussion. LittleJerry (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Re: "Mind if I redirect your userpage to your user talk page?"
Yes I do - I wish people would not do those redirections. One sentence on the user page is all it takes to get rid of the redlink. --Greenmaven (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Six dots... Nice touch! Thanks --Greenmaven (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- And thank you for copyediting the tammar article. LittleJerry (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- It was a pleasure. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
FA
yah, I struck the oppose. I didn't understand what you were saying about the page numbers til you posted it on the talk page. It just looked like they were missing. In my past case I used a ref like "Smith (1987) pp. 120-135" and they said i had to narrow it down to no more than 2 pages in a range. I wasn't used to seeing the page ranges the way you did them and ir's legit. I piss people off so I think my stuff gets scrutinized more than some, though. Good luck with it. Oh one other thing...no mention of giraffe bone, hide or hair used by humans? Giraffe bone makes great knife handle/pistol grip material.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The article Black mamba, which you reviewed for GA, is being reassessed. Your comments are requested. Danger High voltage! 09:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
3RR
You've already broken the three revert rule at Right-wing politics. Further reverts will result in a block. Danger High voltage! 15:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Plagiarism concern
Hi LittleJerry, I have a concern about plagiarism in articles you have edited. Significant problems were discovered in Giraffe, as documented by Nikkimaria at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Giraffe/archive3. I did a random spot-check on another article you worked on, Tammar Wallaby, and found direct plagiarism; you didn't even attempt to paraphrase the source, you just copied and pasted the text. I documented this at Talk:Tammar Wallaby. Are you aware that this constitutes plagiarism (and in many cases, copyright violation) and is not acceptable here? Please let me know what you understanding is of this concept, so we know what coaching may be necessary. More important, it is imperative that you let me know what other articles you've worked on contain plagiarized text, so the cleanup can begin. Do any of them have GA or FA status? --Laser brain (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- How about checking the entire article before making such broad claims. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- What broad claim did I make? I didn't say the whole article was plagiarized, I said that I found plagiarism. I'm asking if you understand what plagiarism is, since you clearly thought it was acceptable to copy and paste directly from a source.
- I do. And I always write it in my own words. LittleJerry (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- And yes, you said the entire article was likely plagarised based on just one. LittleJerry (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you always write it in your own words, how to you explain the direct copy/paste I found? And incidentally, the change you just made completely changes the meaning of the sentence. --Laser brain (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anyway, when you have time, I need you to get in involved in fixing this. If you are really claiming you always write in your own words, despite my evidence to the contrary, then you need coaching on what constitutes plagiarism, ASAP. Read Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing in addition to Wikipedia:Plagiarism. I'm willing to assume good faith and operate on the assumption that you actually just don't know what you're doing. So let's work on it. In any case, I need a list of articles where you have potentially committed plagiarism so they can be checked. --Laser brain (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Fine you can check these out:
Pilot whale- Greater bulldog bat
- Tiger quoll
- Jamaican fruit bat
- Large flying fox
- Cape Ground Squirrel
Bighorn SheepPronghorn- European hare
You'll have to do it alone. I'm done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is a disappointing response. These problems are much easier to deal with when we have the assistance of the editor. I had hoped you would stay to learn what went wrong and help us fix it. If you do decide to return, I would be happy to coach you on proper paraphrasing. --Laser brain (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- To the list provided above, add Grévy's Zebra (GA). --Stfg (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- LittleJerry, I hope you stick around. I'll be going through Tammar Wallaby and giraffe when I get some time - so if you feel too frustrated or annoyed, just wait a little and we can discuss after a review - this is partly my fault for not being more thorough then, so I'll see if we can make this a learning process all round. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Okay then, maybe you can be my co-nominator if I put these up. LittleJerry (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- To the list provided above, add Grévy's Zebra (GA). --Stfg (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Right, here is what I did with one. This can be tricky sometimes and the best thing is to find a few different sources to get a more thorough 'feel' for what they're trying to say. One learns something new every day, I never knew that's what "grizzled" meant.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
March 2012
Your recent editing history at Right-wing politics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Puffin Let's talk! 20:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- How about looking though the history or read the talk page. You clearly just poped out of nowhere and have no idea about the debate. LittleJerry (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Orangutan GOCE request
Hi LittleJerry. As you and UtherSRG are busily editing the article, I've placed the request on hold for now, because copy editing is only worth while for stable articles. When the content is stable, please let me know, and I'll remove the on-hold flag. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll let you know when UtherSRG makes his edit. LittleJerry (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Can you either send me an e-mail or enable your e-mail please? Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- What email message do you need? LittleJerry (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'd like to discuss something with you via e-mail. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I can't find your address. LittleJerry (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. When you recently edited Grévy's zebra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antiquity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 14:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
April 2012
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Left-wing politics, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. AV3000 (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Orangutan
|
|
The Fauna Barnstar | |
| I award you this barnstar for your excellent work getting the Orangutan article up to GA status. Rlendog (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
resource request
Hi,
I've uploaded the articles that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find links to the articles at that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
RE: GA nomination
You've pretty much got it. I've absolutely no idea how to do it. In fact, I was under the impression that it was wiki policy to not "blow one's own trumpet", for neutrality's sake. Mariomassone (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations
Congratulations on the passing of Giraffe for featured article! I admire your persistence and wonderful attitude. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help. LittleJerry (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Resilient Barnstar |
| For having the patience of a saint with the giraffe article.....and getting there in the end.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC) |
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Joining the cheers... :)
|
|
After four rounds of FA candidacy you truly deserve a drink! Congratulations to your Giraffe article promotion! Nageh (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC) |
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Enough of the changes in spelling
You have been told many times before not to change Australian spelling to US spelling but you are back to your bad old ways with changes of spelling and not using the edit summary. Bidgee (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Enough of this nonsense. I'm not all that familiar with US vs Australian spellings. I'm only interested in cleaning up articles with copyright problems. Enough of the bad faith. LittleJerry (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- I only know a few Australian spellings and when I'm cleaning up an article, I'm not concerned with whether a word's spelling is Australian or American. I'm not on any crusade to undue all Australian spellings. LittleJerry (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Re: dinosaur cleanup
Hello, LittleJerry;
I'll see what I can do when I have time. I don't think the absence of DOIs in Stegosaurus is in itself a problem for FA status, because they can be easily added. A greater problem is just the fact that it reached the FA level several years ago, so it won't be at the same standard as more recent FAs. J. Spencer (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Tammar Wallaby
Hello LittleJerry. There's a copy-paste problem in Tammar Wallaby. I've described it at User talk:Rumiton#Tammar Wallaby. Rgds, --Stfg (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi again. I'm no good at genetics stuff either, but does this difficulty perhaps suggest that that sentence is too detailed and technical for an encyclopedia? Also, since the article goes right on to mention the 2011 sequencing, isn't the 2009 exercise a bit historical now? The whole abstract in that source is very technical and difficult to unravel. One possibility might be to collapse the first half of that paragraph into something like this:
- Key immune genes from the tammar wallaby were isolated and studied in 2009,[38] and the full genome was sequenced in 2011.[39] This has provided much information ...
- That allows the 2009 research to be referenced without having to get into details that would need a thesis to explain :)) --Stfg (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Done, thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Selous' zebra
Hey. Do you know anything about the Selous' zebra? MSW doesn't mention it, IUCN doesn't mention it, sources linked from Google scholar are ancient. Any idea what's with this? --Stfg (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Kingdon's books mentions it but East African Mammals: An Atlas of Evolution in Africa, Volume 3, Part B: Large Mammals implies that it could be a hybrid population. I would try to get access to Groves, C. P. and Bell, C. H. 2004 "New investigations on the taxonomy of the zebras genus Equus, subgenus Hippotigris". Maybe it mentions what happen to the taxonomic status of this subspecies. LittleJerry (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Unfortunately that's behind a paywall and I'm too distant from any university. Oh well, thanks anyway. --Stfg (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- You don't have to be. Just request it at Resource Request. LittleJerry (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'd forgotten about that. I won't actually be doing it, as that would imply I wanted to work substantially on the article, and I actually want to avoid equids. I put a note on its talk page asking for better science, and will leave it at that. At least now I know that the Selous isn't just some fantasy. Thanks for your help. --Stfg (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- You don't have to be. Just request it at Resource Request. LittleJerry (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Unfortunately that's behind a paywall and I'm too distant from any university. Oh well, thanks anyway. --Stfg (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
- Giant anteater (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Respiration, Central, Diurnal and Vulnerable
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Help at God of War character page
Since you know the page and series, but haven't contributed to the page in over a year, maybe you can help out a bit. There's been a disagreement over at the List of God of War characters page (which is looking a lot better since the last time you made edits there if you haven't seen it recently). There's pretty much two disagreements here, the first is the lead and the second is the character descriptions. I requested an RFC on the page almost a week ago, but no one has responded to it yet. I was preferring someone who has never edited the page, but that seems like it's not going to happen. If you choose to look it over and leave some comments, do it in the RFC section here. Also, if you can, you can leave comments on the Peer Review page here to help improve the page towards "Good" or "Featured" status. Thanks. JDC808 (talk) 05:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about the lede but I will leave a comments or two at the PR. LittleJerry (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Re:Peer review
I'd love to, that's certainly an article with which I'd enjoy being involved. I'll hopefully find some time to take a look in the next few days. J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Copy editing of California sea lion
Hi LittleJerry, I completed the copy edit of California sea lion. I tagged a few ambiguous phrases with {{clarify}}, so you may want to look into those if you're going for FA or something. Best, BDD (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
A pie for you!
|
|
Congratulations and thanks for your work on "Tammar wallaby"! Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC) |
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Ed, Edd n Eddy
Hi, Jerry! Thanks for the source review at the FAC for Ed, Edd n Eddy. I think I took care of the two minor issues you adressed. :) All the best, --Khanassassin ☪ 16:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I hope I'm not annoying, but is the source check passed? :) Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 19:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but the delegates will decide if its good enough. LittleJerry (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Re:Peer review
Sorry, slipped my mind. I'll do my best to find some time. J Milburn (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Main page appearance: giraffe
This is a note to let the main editors of giraffe know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 26, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 26, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:
The giraffe is an African even-toed ungulate mammal, the tallest living terrestrial animal and the largest ruminant. Its specific name refers to its camel-like face and the patches of color on its fur, which bear a vague resemblance to a leopard's spots. The giraffe is noted for its extremely long neck and legs, as well as its horn-like ossicones. It is classified under the family Giraffidae, along with its closest extant relative, the okapi. The giraffe's scattered range extends from Chad in the north to South Africa in the south, and from Niger in the west to Somalia in the east. Giraffes usually inhabit savannas, grasslands, and open woodlands. Their primary food source is acacia leaves, which they can browse at heights that most other herbivores cannot reach. Giraffes are preyed on by lions, and calves are also targeted by leopards, spotted hyenas and wild dogs. Adult giraffes do not have strong social bonds, though they do gather in loose aggregations if they happen to be moving in the same general direction. The giraffe has intrigued various cultures, both ancient and modern, for its peculiar appearance, and has often been featured in paintings, books and cartoons. It is classified by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as Least Concern, but has been extirpated from many parts of its former range, and some subspecies are classified as Endangered. (more...)
UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Precious
|
|
giraffe |
| Thank you for sharing details about the giraffe up to necking and cultural significance, and for your quality work on other mammals, such as the Pilot whale and the Tammar wallaby, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- A year ago, you were the 194th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
You've edited this page before
Wanna come help with this page again? I'm having issues with a current editor and it's quite tiresome. There's discussions on the Talk page, but he doesn't quite discuss as much as I wish he would (I wish he would elaborate and go more in depth and cite legit examples and/or policies) and sometimes just doesn't discuss what's asked of him. JDC808 (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks but I'm not as in to it as much as you guys are and I don't really have a strong opinion either way. Sorry. LittleJerry (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Right whale
I still see several unsourced statements. Might wanna go over it again and make sure you've sourced it all. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Christopher Monckton "Conspiracy theorists" category
Hi LittleJerry. Category additions like this need to be supported by the article content (suitably sourced). You need to either add something about his belief concerning Obama's birth, or remove the category. Monckton is one of those hard cases for wikipedia, who seems to spout all sorts of claims. Personally I'm never sure how sincere he is. shellac (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 19:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
|
The Fauna Barnstar | |
| To LittleJerry, for writing the article "Giant anteater". Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC) |
Thank you for more high quality work. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Orangutan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dyak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
American alligator
I have taken on the GA review of American alligator. I was wondering if you would care to reciprocate by reviewing one of my nominations? I have put forward three articles for GAN, Sandgrouse, Tropaeolum (I've just nominated Tropaeolum today and it may not appear on the list for a few hours) and Amphibian. It is the last one that I am keen for someone to review. This is because I would like to put it forward for FA before the end of the month, the timing being important as I am competing in the WikiCup which draws to a close at the end of October. However, I appreciate that Amphibian is a rather long article and might involve a greater time commitment than you would choose to undertake. I will review your article in any event especially as you have helped me with Common toad. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. It seems someone has decided to review one of your article. If you hope to prepare Amphibian for FA then there are better people than me. Also, since you are a member of Wikiproject:Insects and Wikiproject:Gastropods may I request bringing a few articles to FA based under those in the future (preferably icons ones like bee)? LittleJerry (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help in the FAC process for Common toad which has just been promoted. When you did your spotcheck of sources I did not realise that any action was required on my part. When using several sources for the description of an organism one builds up a picture but it is difficult to reference every scrap of information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Brown Bear
Hi LittleJerry, I see that you have replaced the infobox image for Brown bear with just a brief edit summary of "reverted superior image." I'm not convinced that the current image [[30]] is better than the replaced image [[31]]. I believe portraits are better for infobox images of articles. I just wanted your know thoughts on why you think the change was needed? Yathin S Krishnappa (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I changed it because the current image shows a fuller view of the animal's body. In addition, I think a lateral view is better for a animal like the brown bear. LittleJerry (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, I would prefer the profile view in the description section to show the characteristic hump (perhaps with an image showing the giant claws). My opinion is that we should have a nicer photograph in the infobox and the characteristic images in the article. Perhaps, the profile view of the bear looking into camera would make us both happy, but I don't see such an image on commons/wiki. Perhaps I should check my Kodiak archives and see if I have something like that. Yathin S Krishnappa (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Okay but the current image does show the hump. LittleJerry (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi LittleJerry, what do you think about this image - File:2010-kodiak-bear-1.jpg - for the infobox of Brown bear. I'm trying to work on putting images of better photographic quality into the infobox and I feel the brown bear page can be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yathin sk (talk • contribs) 21:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I dunno. The hair on the current one is sleeker. LittleJerry (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi LittleJerry, what do you think about this image - File:2010-kodiak-bear-1.jpg - for the infobox of Brown bear. I'm trying to work on putting images of better photographic quality into the infobox and I feel the brown bear page can be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yathin sk (talk • contribs) 21:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Okay but the current image does show the hump. LittleJerry (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, I would prefer the profile view in the description section to show the characteristic hump (perhaps with an image showing the giant claws). My opinion is that we should have a nicer photograph in the infobox and the characteristic images in the article. Perhaps, the profile view of the bear looking into camera would make us both happy, but I don't see such an image on commons/wiki. Perhaps I should check my Kodiak archives and see if I have something like that. Yathin S Krishnappa (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Article you requested per fair use
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9158964/371.pdf
Please let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I got it. Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Article you requested per fair use
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9158964/Asian%20and%20African%20elephants.PDF
Pls let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- I got it. Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Reversions should be discussed
You recently reverted an edit of mine on infrasonic communication in the Elephant article, with an edit summary of "Thank you, but no thanks...". First, I believe it is rather bad manners on WP to delete a whole sub-section which is well researched, informative, written in encyclopaedic style and contains in-line citations without first entering into discussions on the Talk page. Second, the version you have reverted to contains the sentence 'For African elephants, these calls range from 15–35 Hz and can be as loud as 117 dB, allowing communication for many kilometers, with a possible maximum range of around 10 km (6.2 mi).' My edit contained the same relevant information for Asian elephants, so why did you delete this? I will replace my edit. __DrChrissy (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I deleted it because you did not make the citing formats consistant with the rest. In addition, I already have a source that says that infrasound is important to both. LittleJerry (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I added it back. LittleJerry (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
I feel dumbfounded to see that you delete this above-mentioned picture. Your action seems me not relevant. Did you have an eye to the associated text?
«An elephant's skull is resilient enough to withstand the forces generated by the leverage of the tusks and head-to-head collisions. The back of the skull is flattened and spread out, creating arches that protect the brain in every direction.[42] The skull contains air cavities (sinuses) that reduce the weight of the skull while maintaining overall strength. These cavities give the inside of the skull a honeycomb-like appearance. The cranium is particularly large and provides enough room for the attachment of muscles to support the entire head. The lower jaw is solid and heavy.[40] Because of the size of the head, the neck is relatively short to provide better support.[36]»
There is in my opinion a appropriate association of image and text. If you do not think so, could you please state your case?
Or do you accept that I renew the insertion of this image on the right side under or above the image of the elephant eye?
Best,--Schnäggli (talk) 11:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the image of the skull should be reinstated - it is extremely informative, much more so than the unnecessar image of an elephant's eye in the same section. If it is aesthetically displeasing to have the 2 small images, (Skeleton and Skull) then delete the image of the eye and replace it with the image of the skull.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I will add it. LittleJerry (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the image of the skull should be reinstated - it is extremely informative, much more so than the unnecessar image of an elephant's eye in the same section. If it is aesthetically displeasing to have the 2 small images, (Skeleton and Skull) then delete the image of the eye and replace it with the image of the skull.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Invisible characters
Hi. Why did you revert my edit in Elephant? I removed invisible characters that may be harmful. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Misunderstanding, sorry. LittleJerry (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elephant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Molar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jerry! Is the University of Adelaide doctoral dissertation in this request still open? I can try to get it for you ... -- Doc Taxon (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks but I don't need then anymore. LittleJerry (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Elephant
I am sorry to see that FAC reviewers still have complaints about the article. I peer-reviewed the article before the FAC and also skimmed over the article again towards the start of the FAC. (I suspect that part of the issue is that you continued to make changes to the article after my main review.) I don't think that I can help any more with the article. It may be better to find another reviewer/editor to help. Good luck. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I am going to try to copy-edit the article again.
- From the lead section, paragraph 1: "African elephants have larger ears and concave backs while Asian elephants have smaller ears and convex backs." Are you sure that "concave" and "convex" are the right way round? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Nevermind. Someone already is copyediting. But thanks anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. That what the sources say. LittleJerry (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm. The photos and diagrams seem to show the opposite. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Concave = "hollowed or rounded inward like the inside of a bowl." Convex = "a surface or boundary that curves or bulges outward". Looks accurate to me. I don't think I need an CE from you, Cas and John have done so and Sandy has now strenched her oppose. Thanks anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- That because we don't get very clear views of their entire backs. Look at this. LittleJerry (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Elephant
Hi,
I saw you have spent quite a bit of time on developing and sourcing the article. Kudos on the good work. I wanted to ask regarding your revert; the trunk section mentions multiple uses so ideally both images can be used, perhaps at smaller sizes to avoid clutter. If there is place for one image only, I'd prefer mine (I'm biased of course :)) because it shows the animal in the wild and is of much better image quality and resolution (it's featured) as opposed to the Asian one with a harness and chain around its neck. what you say ? --Muhammad(talk) 09:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
FAC review for an FAC review?
I'll review Elephant if you review God of War (video game)? Only if you have time of course. --JDC808 ♫ 19:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not needed. I just need an approval of the prose. Thanks anyway. I may look at your article later but I'm not a very good FAC reviewer. LittleJerry (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Manta ray
Congratulations on bringing Elephant to FA status. It was quite a gruelling process.
The Core Contest does not seem to be going anywhere at the moment so I am ready to start working on Manta ray when you are. I have been working recently on Common starling with Jimfbleak and we have found it convenient to use the article's talk page to discuss what needs to be done and how to arrange/format things. Shall we do likewise for Manta ray? Do you favour British English or American English? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, does next week (around Thursday or Friday) sound good? We can work and discuss then and I would prefer to use American English this time. LittleJerry (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Suits me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, does next week (around Thursday or Friday) sound good? We can work and discuss then and I would prefer to use American English this time. LittleJerry (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have now been through the whole article tweaking the prose. It is a much shorter article than Elephant which helps us. We also benefit from the fact that the manta ray is less well researched and so there is less information available from which to pick the salient points. I have also rewritten some of the image captions and changed some. I added the drawing in the "Anatomy" section because many of the images don't show the whole fish clearly. I am still unhappy with the one in the "Threats" section because I doubt whether the fish in the image are actually manta rays, and the one in the "Conservation" section I don't like because it is poor quality and not relevant to that section. The "Tourism" section image that I have included at the end impinges on the "References" section on my screen, but I will try to find some more information to add to the article that will correct this. If you don't like my changes, feel free to restore the original images. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
PS. I wondered what you had been doing for the last few days and saw you had been working on European hare so I took the liberty of improving it a bit myself. I hope you don't mind. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thats fine. Thanks for the help. I don't intend to bring that article to FA. Just GA. LittleJerry (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Here are a few thoughts on good articles and how they affect me. Firstly, I prefer working on GAs because FAs are a bit more pernickety, and the difference between them and GAs does not seem to me to be worth the extra effort. In the WikiCup, a GA scores 30 points and there are bonus points which depend on the number of different language Wikipedias in which an equivalent article appears. In the case of European hare that is about 50 Wikipedias which increases the point score for a GA by 200% to 90. Because I have worked on the article, I can claim these points even though it is you nominating it for GA. Manta ray is only on 6 foreign language Wikipedias and if successful at GA will gain me 30 points plus a 20% bonus of 6 points making a total of 36 points. A similar points system applies to FAs but in that case, only the person or people named in the original nomination are entitled to claim points. At FA, Manta ray would be worth 100 points plus 20 points bonus.
- Which brings me to the point of this message. The WikiCup has 5, two-month rounds with the top scorers going through each time to the next round, but the points being reset at zero at the beginning of each round. The earlier rounds are easy and I should have no difficulty getting to round 4 which runs through July and August. If you thought that my additions were helpful in European hare and you felt like co-operating on further articles for GA, I would be glad to do so, now or later. I would be especially pleased if they were high bonus point articles in the later stages of the Cup (July to October). European rabbit or Brown rat are the sort of articles I was thinking of but there must be plenty more. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Main page appearance: giant anteater
This is a note to let the main editors of giant anteater know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 6, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 6, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:
The giant anteater is a large insectivorous mammal native to Central and South America. It is one of four living species of anteater and is classified with the sloths in the order Pilosa. This species is the most terrestrial of the living anteaters, unlike its arboreal or semi-arboreal cousins, and is the largest of its family, stretching 182–217 cm (5.97–7.12 ft) and weighing 33–41 kg (73–90 lb) for males and 27–39 kg (60–86 lb) for females. It is recognizable by its elongated snout, bushy tail, long foreclaws and distinctively colored pelage. The anteater can be found in multiple habitats including grassland and rainforest and feeds primarily on ants and termites, using its foreclaws to dig them up and its long, sticky tongue to collect them. The giant anteater is listed as Vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). It has been extirpated from some parts of its former range. Threats to its survival include habitat destruction and hunting, though some anteaters inhabit protected areas. Because of its distinctive appearance, the anteater has been featured in pre-Columbian myths and folktales as well as modern popular culture. (Full article...)
UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Resource Request
Hi LittleJerry, I'm able to access four of the articles you requested, but you don't seem to have the ability to receive email enabled. How would you like me to send the articles to you? HMman (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC). Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of striking off the four articles I sent you and marking your request as resolved; if I made an error please don't hesitate to revert my changes. Regards, HMman (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC).
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Good Article Barnstar | |
| For your contributions to bring the popular page koala to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC) |
Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Koala article
Hi, I segregated the refs on Koala to reduce clutter and make the page easier to edit. This is accepted on Wikipedia (see Help:List-defined references). But then you went and undid my work, why? Do you want the page to be more difficult to edit? Hergilei (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm use to referencing that way. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Manta GA
Hi! Just so you know, today I passed the article as I am now satisfied it meets all the criteria. Sorry it's taken so long, but the raticle was quite complex, and required a second opinion on some issues. Thanks for your work. ★★RetroLord★★ 09:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Are you gonna open a peer review page? I am ready to start. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Up now. LittleJerry (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Are you gonna open a peer review page? I am ready to start. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Koala
Hi,
I have at least two sources that say the female reaches sexual maturity at three years (not two like the article currently says); both are more recent (2005 and 2011) than the 1999 source used for the two year claim. Any objections to me changing it? Sasata (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- No that's fine. Maybe its two to three years? LittleJerry (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Cladogram
I suspect you'll want to work on this - most obviously, this may not cover the scope you are interested in (maybe you want to include all vertebrates at the outer level, maybe you want to include less); and you may want to try to find all-English or all-Latinate names.
- Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes)
- Chimaeras
- Elasmobranchii
- Sharks
- Batoidea
- Electric rays
- Sawfishes, skates and stingrays
- Sawfishes
- Skates and stingrays
- Skates and guitarfishes
- Myliobatiformes (Stingrays)
- Other stingrays
- Mobulinae
- Mobula
- Manta
Anyway, have fun with it. And good luck... Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks but I want to keep it specific to rays like in the article. I'll wait for Sasta. LittleJerry (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- As you like. We can easily just chop to begin with Stingrays, etc. But now we know for next time. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Manta ray, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caudal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 00:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Quagga papers
I've looked through Google scholar to see if there were papers that would be useful.I dont have access to any of them, but we should probably get these:[32][33][34][35][36]
These could maybe be nice as well:[37][38][39] FunkMonk (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I also found some information on the quagga's history with people and its biology/ecology. I was planning on working on Smilodon before quagga but if you're ready we can work this coming week. LittleJerry (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'll be busy with a school project (and getting Dromaeosauroides to GA) the coming few weeks, so maybe a little later? Also because I'd love to see Smilodon get improved... It seems to wander way too off topic (uncited) in the last half. FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, then. LittleJerry (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'll be busy with a school project (and getting Dromaeosauroides to GA) the coming few weeks, so maybe a little later? Also because I'd love to see Smilodon get improved... It seems to wander way too off topic (uncited) in the last half. FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Manta ray FAC
You have been fielding queries well over at the FAC, mostly before I have time to get there. This is just to let you know that I shall be away from home and computer for the next week. I'm due to return on 3rd May. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Okay then. LittleJerry (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's now been promoted. Thank you for your cooperation. I think you did more than I did to get it through but this might be reversed with Starfish. The reason I don't want to nominate that article too early is because I would like to use it for WikiCup points in the 4th round, ie after the end of June. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Okay then, I wasn't planning on nominating it that early anyway. We should at least get a PR first, shouldn't we? LittleJerry (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I should think so, but it's not ready for that yet. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Okay then, I wasn't planning on nominating it that early anyway. We should at least get a PR first, shouldn't we? LittleJerry (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's now been promoted. Thank you for your cooperation. I think you did more than I did to get it through but this might be reversed with Starfish. The reason I don't want to nominate that article too early is because I would like to use it for WikiCup points in the 4th round, ie after the end of June. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Smilodon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nasal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American alligator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Apex (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 23:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
property not used in productiion
please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property#Personal_property_versus_Means_of_Production and self-revert if you agree your good faith edit was in error.
- It seems the means of production are property. LittleJerry (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Smilodon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trauma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
June 2013
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Warrior (wrestler) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Ultimate warrior. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. NiciVampireHeart 12:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quagga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Concave (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Santa Claus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kris Kringle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
My good article review follows. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
GA Review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Quagga/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 15:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Well-written
Introduction This article is rather well-written, but it could have used a good copyedit, preferably by fresh eyes: there were occasional prose issues, mainly just little things like "The pattern of the quagga was unique among equids", when it hadn't been established that the coat pattern was being discussed. The sort of errors that are easy to miss if you've been working on the article a while. It also occasionally lapsed into present tense, when it meant past tense, e.g. saying the quagga is the most southern-living species of zebra, when the quagga is extinct, and therefore can't be described as living anywhere. Also, a bit of poor handling of uncertainty, e.g. "The quagga may have been 257 cm (8.43 ft) long and stood 125–135 cm (4.10–4.43 ft) tall", which reads a bit oddly (I've changed it to "is believed to have been").
Likewise, "The quagga was hunted by early Dutch settlers from the 1600s, and later by their descendants the Afrikaners, who thought the animals were easy to find and kill." - "thought" reads rather oddly in that sentence, and is implied if left out anyway.
All really little things, easily fixed, and they have been; I only mention them because it may be useful for the next good article candidate you do.
Things that still need fixing One thing I couldn't fix, which, even if I don't consider it quite big enough to block GA status, I would suggest fixing, is this paragraph:
| “ | On the basis of some accounts and photographs, it has been suggested that the stripes were light, contrary to the configuration in other zebras. But it has been pointed out that this is an optical illusion, and that the base colour of the head, shoulders, and other parts was a creamy white, which is what gives this impression when seen between the actual dark stripes, typical of zebras. However, embryological evidence supports zebra being dark coloured with white as an addition. | ” |
While not bad, it'd be good to try a little harder to link the facts together. Of course, you may be trying to avoid Original research, but there's ways to do that, such as saying something like "X states this was an optical illusion; however, embryological evidence states that, in fact, all species of zebras begin dark coloured, with the white being an addition."
Citations
These are generally quite good, though a little more precision would be recommended if you're going to FA, for example:
| “ | Living in the very southern end of the plains zebra's range, the quagga possibly had a thick winter coat that moulted each year. Its skull was described as having a straight profile and a concave distema,[1] and as being relatively broad, with a narrow occiput. The 2004 morphological study found that the skeletal features of Burchell's zebra and the quagga overlapped, and that they were impossible to distinguish. Some specimens also appeared to be intermediate between the two in striping. The female specimens used in the study were larger than the males on average.[2] Like other plains zebras, the quagga did not have a dewlap on its neck, as is present on the mountain zebra.[3] | ” |
Arguably, there should be a citation after the word "occiput", even though I'm pretty sure it's the 2004 morphological study described immediately thereafter. Referencing before moving on to the next major fact helps if someone starts rearranging the text, an advantage on Wikipedia.
Accuracy
The statement that "The technology to use recovered DNA for breeding does not exist" (at the end of the article) is misleading. While the intent is likely to say that one cannot put the recovered DNA into a gamete and use it for breeding that way, it's completely possible to compare DNA of the population being bred for similarity to the DNA recovered from the historical quaggas. I'd suggest rewriting this.
- How about cloning instead of breeding? FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Perfect. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Conclusion
Despite the few issues, this easily passes GA. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, some of the language issues may be due to two editors working on it simultaneously, I and Little Jerry. FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Understandable. As I said, they're the sort of little, minor things that are easy to miss if you've been working on something a while. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Alright. We still have plenty of time. LittleJerry (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Understandable. As I said, they're the sort of little, minor things that are easy to miss if you've been working on something a while. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
References
- ^ Kingdon, J. (1988). East African Mammals: An Atlas of Evolution in Africa, Volume 3, Part B: Large Mammals. University of Chicago Press. p. 139. ISBN 0226437221.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Hippotigriswas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Azzaroliwas invoked but never defined (see the help page).
- It's going unusually slow at the FAC (birds usually get more love). The main problem seems to be our lack of a copy edit, but since the review process is going so slowly as well, I guess someone will do it before the FAC is over. FunkMonk (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Promoted works
Hi Jerry, it seems you have quite an impressive amount of contributions here, is there a list where one can check out all your FA and GA work? If you even keep track, that is. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Here is where you find FA promotions. LittleJerry (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, nice, never saw that before! Is there a list of GAs? FunkMonk (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes but its only shows the people with the most GA promotions. I'm not on there. I recall bringing thirteen articles to GA status (not including the FAs which went through GA first). LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, nice, never saw that before! Is there a list of GAs? FunkMonk (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- It seems quagga is very close to passing. But too late for TFA on August 12. It was nice working with you! Tell me whenever you want to collaborate on something extinct again. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've nominated quagga for this August 12: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests/Quagga Feel free to modify the blurb. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Koala
Jerry, how do you feel about splitting out the first paragraph of "Ecology and behaviour" as a new section "Distribution and habitat"? Also, the subsection "Health and mortality" doesn't really seem to fit into the general theme "Ecology and behaviour", so maybe that should be a separate section too? Sasata (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Okay then. Also, what should be done about a "food" section? LittleJerry (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, diet is covered in "Foraging and activities", but I'd consider tweaking the section title for that too, if it comes up. Sasata (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, I mean JM is suggesting discussion of Aborigenes hunting koalas. LittleJerry (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, diet is covered in "Foraging and activities", but I'd consider tweaking the section title for that too, if it comes up. Sasata (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Okay then. Also, what should be done about a "food" section? LittleJerry (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Starfish
I would suit me to nominate Starfish for FAC now. Would you object to my closing the peer review and nominating it? Axl has stated here that he is happy for us to proceed in this way and that if he finds any further problems, he can deal with them at FAC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Okay then. Go for it! LittleJerry (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it was quite a struggle, but we got there in the end! Thank you for your cooperation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your hard work. LittleJerry (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it was quite a struggle, but we got there in the end! Thank you for your cooperation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Okay then. Go for it! LittleJerry (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pinniped, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cystophora (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
European badger
I see you put a tag on European badger asking for the lead to be expanded. I have been working on the article for some weeks with the intention of nominating it for GA. I have now expanded the lead section, but do not intend to nominate it before the end of August, because if successful, it will be a high-scoring article and the points will be useful in the final round of the WikiCup. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Okay then. LittleJerry (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Resource
Your second requested article is ready for download. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pinniped, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jetti (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pinniped, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ultrasonic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Donald Duck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walt Disney Studio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 23:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
TFA
I have nominated koala at WP:TFAR. Great article!PumpkinSky talk 02:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I made a slight change to the opening. LittleJerry (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Main Page appearance: koala
This is a note to let the main editors of koala know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on August 16, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 16, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
The koala is an arboreal herbivorous marsupial native to Australia, and is recognised worldwide as an iconic symbol of the country because of its distinctive appearance. It is the only extant representative of the family Phascolarctidae and its closest living relatives are the wombats. It is easily recognisable by its stout, tailless body, round, fluffy ears and large, spoon-shaped nose. It is popularly known as the koala bear because of its bear-like appearance. The koala has a body length of 60–85 cm (24–33 in) and weighs 4–15 kg (9–33 lb). Pelage colour ranges from silver grey to chocolate brown. Koalas typically inhabit open Eucalyptus woodlands, and the leaves of these trees make up most of their diet. Because this eucalypt diet provides them with only low nutrition and energy, koalas are largely sedentary and sleep for up to 20 hours a day. They are asocial animals, and bonding only exists between mothers and dependent offspring. They have few natural predators and parasites but are threatened by various pathogens, as well as by bushfires and droughts. The biggest threat to their existence is habitat destruction due to agriculture and urbanisation. (Full article...)
UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Star
|
|
The Teamwork Barnstar |
| For proposing to collaborate on quagga, which resulted in a nice little FA! FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC) |
Thanks. It was nice working with you. LittleJerry (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Million Award
|
|
The Million Award | |
| For your contributions to bring Koala (estimated annual readership: 1,239,000) and Giraffe (estimated annual readership: 1,233,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment--not many Wikipedians will earn even one of these in their careers, much less multiple ones--and thanks for all you do for our readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC) |
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:
| This editor won the Million Award for bringing Giraffe to Featured Article status. |
| This editor won the Million Award for bringing Koala to Featured Article status. |
If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers and all best, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! LittleJerry (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Here's one more for ya, and it's a big one!
| This editor won the Million Award for bringing Elephant to Featured Article status. |
- I probably won't leave any more of these here individually because I don't want to spam your talk, but if you do decide to trick out your user page some day, feel free to let me know or just help yourself. Thanks again for serving so many readers with your work--your contributions are breathtaking. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's alright and thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- I probably won't leave any more of these here individually because I don't want to spam your talk, but if you do decide to trick out your user page some day, feel free to let me know or just help yourself. Thanks again for serving so many readers with your work--your contributions are breathtaking. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Half million award
Just saw this news in the WikiCup newsletter, and am happy to present you with another of these already:
|
|
The Half Million Award | |
| For your contributions to bring Starfish (estimated annual readership: 630,092) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC) |
| This editor won the Half Million Award for bringing starfish to Featured Article status. |
Cheers, and thanks for all you do, Khazar2 (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pinniped, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trachea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
September 2013
Your recent editing history at Elephant shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. GedUK 11:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pinniped you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hippopotamus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ruminate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Pinniped
Sure, and if you happen to see a Mistle Thrush fly past... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- That's fine. It may be a day or two. I've had a quick look and it looks generally pretty good. I noticed quite a lot of duplicated links, you may want to run this script Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know about to run the script. LittleJerry (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Take a look at my javascript page, User:Quadell/common.js. Yours is at User:LittleJerry/common.js, or it would be if it existed. Simply copy the last line from my javascript page into your javascript page, and save it. Then close and reopen your browser, and you will see a new "Highlight duplicate links" link in your toolbox at the side of articles you edit. If you need further assistance, let me know. – Quadell (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know about to run the script. LittleJerry (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Pinniped FAC
I have begun the long and comprehensive review of Pinniped for the GAC. (I hope you don't regret requesting my involvement too much!) I plan on finishing the review tomorrow. Just as a heads-up, I will be out of town and away from all internet access from early Saturday the 21st until late Monday the 23rd, and the book-ending Friday and Tuesday are dodgy as well. So if you leave comments regarding this review during that time, I won't be able to get back with you until Tuesday or Wednesday at the earliest. And if I don't get the Pinniped review completed by Thursday, it's likely to be in limbo for almost a week. Anyway, I just wanted to keep you in the loop. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Excellent review! I've fixed a few suggestions, but real life beckons now ... Not sure what to do about "... though two subspecies of ringed seals live in landlocked lakes in Russia close to the Baltic sea.", as the ringed seal article is contradictory (says that only one subspecies is freshwater). Sasata (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking care of these. I fixed the ringed seal. LittleJerry (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't forgotten saying that I would look at Pinniped and make comments at the FAC, its just that I am still rather busy at the Sea FAC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- That's okay. LittleJerry (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't forgotten saying that I would look at Pinniped and make comments at the FAC, its just that I am still rather busy at the Sea FAC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Edit war
Here you insinuate that I am about to "cause an edit war". Please note that in the edit that you refer to, I corrected for the second time a spelling error that you reintroduced. --Ettrig (talk) 08:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, sorry for the misunderstanding. LittleJerry (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nigersaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pectoral (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nigersaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quadrate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations!
|
|
Seal of approval |
| Congratulations on making Pinnipedia a certified Featured Article! Your impressive work has paid off, and I'm glad to see the article on such an important group of mammals make it all the way to the top. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC) |
Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Pinniped to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA you may have helped to write) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,335 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 10:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
GA review of Nigersaurus
Not sure if you noticed, Nigersaurus got reviewed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nigersaurus/GA1 The issues I've left I thought you would be better at solving, since you wrote them. I can also write the part about openings in the skull. FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crocodilia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trachea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crocodilia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diaphragm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Crocodilia
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Crocodilia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Quadell -- Quadell (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Crocodilia
The article Crocodilia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Crocodilia for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Quadell -- Quadell (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats! Very happy to see this one at GA. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- New GAs are now eligible for DYK. Would you like me to nominate Crocodilia? It doesn't bother me whether it is nominated or not but its appearance on the front page would demonstrate that there is some solid work on important topics being done in Wikipedia by dedicated editors like you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sure. LittleJerry (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Crocodilia
| On 3 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Crocodilia, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a crocodilian can replace each of its teeth up to 50 times during its lifetime? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Crocodilia. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Happy holiday season....
|
|
Cheers, pina coladas all round! |
| Damn need a few of these after a frenetic year and Xmas. Hope yours is a good one....Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC) |
- Thank you. Are you still gonna work on those spiders? LittleJerry (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bird, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Crocodilia, and much more...
|
|
The Natural History Shield |
| For Outstanding Service to Natural History on Crocodilia and many other articles. Thank you so much. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC) |
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Main Page appearance: Nigersaurus
This is a note to let the main editors of Nigersaurus know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 18, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 18, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
Nigersaurus (meaning "Niger reptile") is a genus of rebbachisaurid sauropod dinosaur that lived during the middle Cretaceous period, about 115 to 105 million years ago. It was discovered in the Elrhaz Formation in an area called Gadoufaoua, in Niger. Fossils of this dinosaur were first described in 1976, but it was only named in 1999. The genus contains a single species, N. taqueti, named after French palaeontologist Philippe Taquet, who discovered the first remains. At 9 m (30 ft) long—small for a sauropod—it weighed around 4 tonnes, comparable to a modern elephant. It had a wide muzzle filled with more than 500 teeth, which were replaced every 14 days. Unlike other tetrapods, its jaws were wider than the skull, with its teeth were located far to the front, and it fed with its head close to the ground. It lived in a riparian habitat, and its diet probably consisted of soft plants, such as ferns, horsetails, and angiosperms. It is one of the most common fossil vertebrates found in the area, and shared its habitat with other dinosaurian megaherbivores, as well as large theropods and crocodylomorphs. (Full article...)
UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Main Page appearance: Crocodilia
This is a note to let the main editors of Crocodilia know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 27, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 27, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
Crocodilia is an order of large, predatory, semi-aquatic reptiles. They appeared in the Late Cretaceous, and include true crocodiles, alligators, caimans, and gharials. Solidly built animals, they have long flattened snouts, eyes, ears, and nostrils at the top of the head and laterally compressed tails. Their skin is thick and covered in scales; they have conical teeth and a powerful bite. They swim well and can move quite rapidly on land. They are found mainly in lowlands in the tropics, but alligators are also found in the United States (American alligator pictured) and China. They are largely carnivorous; some specialise on fish while others have generalised diets. They are typically solitary and territorial. In some species, females care for their young. Eight species have attacked humans, the largest number of attacks being by the Nile crocodile. Humans threaten crocodilian populations through hunting and habitat destruction, but farming has reduced unlawful trading in wild skins. They have appeared in art since at least Ancient Egypt. Tales of crocodile tears date to the 9th century, repeated by Sir John Mandeville in 1400 and William Shakespeare. (Full article...)
UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Main Page appearance: Starfish
This is a note to let the main editors of Starfish know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 28, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 28, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
There are about 1,500 living species of starfish to be found on the seabed in all the world's oceans, from the tropics to subzero polar waters and from the intertidal zone down to abyssal depths, 6,000 m (20,000 ft) below the surface. Starfish are among the most familiar of marine invertebrates. They typically have a central disc and five arms. The upper surface may be smooth, granular or spiny, and is covered with overlapping plates. Many species are brightly coloured in shades of red or orange, while others are blue, grey or brown. Starfish have tube feet operated by a hydraulic system and a mouth at the centre of the lower surface. They have complex life cycles and can reproduce both sexually and asexually. Most can regenerate damaged parts or lost arms and they can shed arms as a means of defence. Starfish such as the ochre sea star and the reef sea star have become widely known as examples of the keystone species concept in ecology. With their appealing symmetrical shape, starfish are found in literature, legend and popular culture. They are sometimes collected as curios, used in design or as logos, and in some cultures, despite possible toxicity, they are eaten. (Full article...)
UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Copy and paste move
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Somali Giraffe a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Reticulated giraffe. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. .
I know this was a long time ago and you probably know it all by now; I'm only adding the notice to stay with the recommendations on WP:CPMV. If you remember doing something similar to other pages, please consider requesting a history merge. Cheers, 62.107.222.111 (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Starfish
It is nice to see "Starfish" on the main page. (I am not sure why it has taken so long.) Thank you for all your editing. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Whoops
Sorry. The person's not living. I would feel better if you cite your sources though. Sorry for the mistake! Mz7 (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Rule 187–94. is the source. Like the others. LittleJerry (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
A pie for you!
|
|
Sorry for all the reverts and accusations of vandalism. I truly thought you were inserting unsourced defamatory content about a living person. I guess I need to slow down and read more carefully next time. Heh heh, lesson learned. Here's a pie. Cheers! Mz7 (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC) |
- Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 02:20 21 March, 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
IJReid (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thanks for letting me nominate Narwhal when it is ready. You setting aside your work to allow me to increase my chances in the WikiCup is greatly appreciated. IJReid (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| Thanks for your tireless efforts to bring our tiger article to a GA nominee! BigCat82 (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC) |
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Tiger
I see the referencing is being criticised at the GA review and I will work on this now before the reference numbers mentioned in the review become inaccurate. Do you have page numbers for books such as Wild Cats of the World? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I can't do much today. I'm ill and in the ER. If you can't all the find ref pages, maybe you guys can convince the reviewer to pass it since it's more of a thing for FA. LittleJerry (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, and Walker's mammals can be found here. LittleJerry (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Wishing you a speedy recovery. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think the reviewer is going way beyond the GA criteria in this review. For example, I do not consider that the fact that "Tiger" is a high-importance, much-visited page is relevant to the review. Also, I am reluctant to spend too much time rootling through the references to try to find better sources because I believe the reviewer intends to fail the nomination despite our efforts at improvement. I believe there is an appeal process if it does fail. Don't worry about it, we'll win through in the end. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Wishing you a speedy recovery. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, and Walker's mammals can be found here. LittleJerry (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Tiger
Take care man, hope you will get well soon. I will see what I can do. I am not a native English speaker and my written English may not be up to the GA standards but I will try my best. BigCat82 (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you/ LittleJerry (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, not sure why you're removing my bronze image? Surely historic art depictions of a now very rare event, tigers attacking elephants, are of clear interest? Even if such interactions were rare, they were considered important enough to spend serious money on. What is your logic? Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- It clustered up the sections. Also, art can depict anything, such as a tiger attacking a dragon. It doesn't add anything educational. LittleJerry (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Let me first point out that the topic is not 'biological species: tiger' but 'tiger in general', human response and all. I may dislike mascots and cartoons, you may dislike art history and sculpture, but both are relevant to the topic.
- Now then. There was no visual clutter, and not an excessive number of images per section or in the article. As for the topic, it was absolutely not an imaginary dungeons-and-dragons theme, but significantly the claimed genuine occurrence of tigers attacking elephants, as reported (and cited) in the nineteenth century. This is important as such occurrences are now very rare, if any more still occur given the rarity of tigers and the decline in elephants and habitat. The message is "people on the ground then believed tigers attacked elephants". I think this is well worth illustrating with an undoubted historic artefact like the bronze sculpture. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Guys. Shouldn't this thread be on the Talk:Tiger page? I agree with Chiswick Chap. the image of the bronze should be included. It is informative, represents a real situation, and the image is of good quality. That are of the article is border-line cluttered, but I would not rate it as over-cluttered.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support, and hoping to put the image back shortly with agreement, but I'd prefer not to have the thread moved just now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, its fine I guess. LittleJerry (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
hippo ranching
It is just one paragraph, but as I said in my undo, this deletion should be discussed in the talk page and not summarily removed. I will revert the paragraph and start the discussion. If you feel the paragraph is offensive, please make your concerns known in the talk page, but until there is consensus, the paragraph I help create and cite needs to stay.Ctatkinson (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Kentrosaurus
In principle: yes, very interested! In reality: if you can make my days have 48 hours.... HMallison (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, when would you have the time? LittleJerry (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hm, next century? OK, next decade?
- Seriously, I can slowly work on it from time to time; did start a re-write ages ago [[40]] but never got far. We can take it slow and see.... HMallison (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Can you send me a file of "CAD assessment of the posture and range of motion of Kentrosaurus aethiopicus Henning 1915"? LittleJerry (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, never heard of this. HMallison (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I sent you an email. LittleJerry (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, when would you have the time? LittleJerry (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- tx
- can you check out the reference structure I used for Plateosaurus, please? It allows using an alphabetically sorted ref list without duplicates combined with the option for citing exact pages. It also makes sorting the refs easy. I'd like to use this for K., too. HMallison (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, don't have time to really do a thorough review and if I did, I'm sorry to say I'm not exactly the worlds biggest ornithischian expert! Pretty much any other group of stem-bird I could contribute more to... ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Okay thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kentrosaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Decapod (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Tiger
Sorry I didn't reply your messages on my talk page earlier. Soon after I started editing on the article I got a big project in RL and I couldn't even afford sleeping. I already saw that the tiger article achieved GA standards thanks to the efforts of a few of you. Thank you!
I am reading the article again and I think can think of some more improvements. Firstly, the statement "Tiger predation on Asian elephants is rare and restricted to small calves" is too definitive and is actually wrong, because I have a few secondary and tertiary sources reporting accounts that tigers and tigresses took down fully grown adult Asian tusker elephants as preys. I read them online many years ago (2001-2006) and sadly many of the sources are no longer available online (they are mostly reliable reports from major news media in India but now the claims cannot be verified online so they may be subject to challenges). However, a few are still accessible online but I think they will be gone soon as the news are getting old. My questions are, can we use sources that cannot be verified easily (in this case, unless an editor from India verifies the information from his or her local news archives, I cannot prove it)?
Secondly, "Crocodiles, bears and dholes may prevail against and even kill tigers. In particular, dholes may attack and kill a tiger if the pack is quite large" probably needs some improvements and rewriting, as from the sources I read, only salt water crocodiles and grizzly bears killing tigers have been reported. But the mugger crocodiles and slot bears are prey items of tigers and they are not known to kill tigers. The statement is too generic and may mislead readers that muggers and slot bears may kill tigers. And as I said before only two confirmed cases of dhole packs killing tigers with unknown conditions and a long extensive study on tiger and dhole relationship showed that no single tiger of any age was killed by dholes since 1990. The statement "In particular, dholes may attack and kill a tiger if the pack is quite large" seems to emphasize and imply that dholes are more capable of killing tigers than crocodiles and bears are. Although rare, there are still more grizzly bears killing tigers than dholes and salt water crocodiles killing tigers. I think the last statement can be deleted and the first statement can be changed to "Brown bears may prevail against and even kill tigers. Although rare, salt water crocodiles and dholes are also known to do so".
If you are interested to further improve the article please let me know and I will post the sources for you. Thank you.
BigCat82 (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- As I stated on the talk page, the sentence is meant to describe general conflicts not just killings, even sloth bears have been recorded driving tigers away. Here is what the subsection looked like before I trimmed it. The sentence was meant to summarize all that.
- As for the elephants. If these killings are on tame worker elephants (as with the current source) then I don't we should mislead people into thinking tigers prey on wild Asian elephants. LittleJerry (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the edits it looks better. As for the preying on elephants, I was talking about fully grown wild tuskers, not tamed ones (and tamed elephants usually have tusks removed). I was as surprised as you were when I learnt so but it is a fact that tigers do prey on fully grown elephants and rhinos, unlike lion prides which can only take down elephant calves. There are quite a number of reliable third party sources proving it, only that many became removed from online viewing. The two online new media sources I added will likely be removed soon so it is better to correct the information and let more people know this truth before the sources become invalid and the information are challenged and removed.
- Actually there were also two scientific studies recently published indirectly showing tigers are predators on elephants, adults or calves, while lion prides are predators only on elephant calves. But I think they are beyond the scope of the articles.
- I still think its a little misleading, even the articles state that tigers killing adults are rare. With regards to the rhino, when the article describes a rhino killing, it says that a mother and her full grown cubs killed a rhino stuck in the mud. It makes me wonder how much of the other attacks where group attacks. I think we need more reliable sources on tigers killing adults. LittleJerry (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- It is unclear whether the tigers attacked a rhino making it eventually stuck in the mud or the rhino was already stuck in mud before the attack based on the source. And it is true that tigers generally do not attack adult rhinos that's why I didn't mention it in the talk but I combined both rhino and elephant in a single sentence to keeping it concise. However, there are far many more accounts on tigers attacking and killing adult elephants, at least far more than bears / crocodiles killing tigers. Elephants are not as dangerous as rhinos which are faster and more agile than elephants. I have some more better sources on tigers killing wild adult elephants. Although they can no longer be viewed online, they have been retrieved in many other sites and I think I can use these sources. And the source saying tigers were often able to kill hunters and elephants has another implication - you might think those elephants are tamed and are thus easy preys, but the fact is they are controlled by mahouts and with hunters on their back, making them more dangerous in this regard - hunters had weapons and without mahouts, wild elephants of any age, adult or young, in a group or alone, will just silently, swiftly and nervously flee from any sign of tigers (e.g. Tiger roar), while wild adult elephants will ignore lions when alone and react calmly and defensively when in a group with calves - they won't flee and stand group. And elephants will react offensively to signs of leopards (e.g. Leopard roar), preparing to attack and actively pursuit leopards. Scientific studies clearly proved so, and even if we assume those men ridden elephants were tamed and less dangerous, how could the tigers kill these tamed elephants if they lack experience of doing so before? An elephant with men on back appears very weird to any wild predator and most will avoid attacking it and it look like a weird new species. Only tigers are known to attack men ridden elephants, or to attack only the men on elephants, suggesting they are experienced with elephants and can tell they are two different species (men and elephants), not a new animal. BigCat82 (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Some more information for you. It may be hard to believe tigers prey occasionally on adult elephants as this is something a lion pride is unable to achieve. However, pound for pound, jaguars are slightly stronger than tigers, while pound for pound tigers are stronger than lions. Tigers attack elephants mainly by continuously hit-and-run approach, biting it, backing, and eventually wearing it down. The bite force quotient adjusted for body mass allometry (in a layman term, pound for pound) of a jaguar is 7.8% stronger than tigers, while that of tiger is 13.4% stronger than that of a lion. And since bengal tigers are 27% bigger than east african lions and 20% bigger than south african lions, that equates 36-44% difference in strength! Note we are talking about the bite force quotient which averages the bite forces taken from different regions of the jaws - carnassial teeth were also taken into account and the bite force difference in carnassial teeth are smaller than that in canine tips due to leverage, but we know in predation carnassial teeth are unless only the front teeth are being used in predation - so tigers can inflict even far more damage, more than 44% damage, to elephants than a lion can do in each bite. This explains why tigers can take down preys much larger than lions. In fact, the most common prey of tigers, sambar deers, are 40-60% heavier than the most common prey of lions, wildebeests. You can find all the above information in peer reviewed journals. On the other hands, that tigers do no hunt adult elephants is more the gut feeling and common sense of us rather than reality. I understand it's hard to believe but all reports and scientific studies proved it already. We should rely on evidence other than our gut feeling and common sense on this topic, do you agree? Thanks! BigCat82 (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Kentrosaurus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kentrosaurus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reid,iain james -- Reid,iain james (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Also having a look; will fix what I find. It would make life much easier if my suggestion re refs was followed.... 00:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Rodent phylogeny
Hi, I guess it's fairly clear that the phylogeny section needs more refs; I'm fairly happy with the rewritten prose at the top, and the new table which is now fully cited. The material on 'classification' is implicitly cited which might be ok for GA but not for FA. Basically the section needs a few new refs which discuss the issues of the classification of the group as a whole. Finally, the discussion of caviomorph phylogeny (yes, they are rodents after all) is pretty much ok and properly cited. I will basically not be available for some weeks now, which is why I'm letting you know all this. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rodent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Urban. 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) 08:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Kentrosaurus
The article Kentrosaurus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kentrosaurus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reid,iain james -- Reid,iain james (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Kentrosaurus references edit
Hi, I went to great lengths to make individual pages of large sources citable without duplicating references in the ref list. I did this because it was demanded that I add exact page citations for the Plateosaurus GA, and because repeated citations of the same work - just different pages in it - would otherwise lead to the same ref showing up twice, which is annoying. You removed those edits. May I as why? HMallison (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- You mean Paul (2010)? I was just following the tasks on the GA review. I asked for help with the parts about that source (like him apparently not normally listing previous classifications in his Princeton Guide to Dinosaurs) but didn't get anything so I did them myself. LittleJerry (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't talking about the content, but about the formatting of references. I put call-out to specific pages (in this case p. 233 of Paul 2010) into a separate list which then calls out the reference list. This way you can have the actual source (Paul 2010) once in the final list, and still call out various pages in it, or quotes from it, etc. all over the text.
- I'll just re-do them the way they were; it doesn't influence the content.
- WRT content: wikipedia has very weird and subjective criteria on what is a good source and what is shit. Paul (2010) as a source is in many respects no better than LOTR as far as dinosaurs as concerned. Still, people insist on using it. My replies came too late, it seems. HMallison (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- You mean Paul (2010)? I was just following the tasks on the GA review. I asked for help with the parts about that source (like him apparently not normally listing previous classifications in his Princeton Guide to Dinosaurs) but didn't get anything so I did them myself. LittleJerry (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Kentrosaurus
| On 9 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kentrosaurus, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Kentrosaurus (fossil K. aethiopicus pictured) had extensive osteodermal covering, forming very elongated spikes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kentrosaurus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Gatoclass (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Giraffe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Suspensory ligament. 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) 10:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Tiger striping pattern
Hello Jerry thanks for your message on my talk page. I will starting looking for the information you need and will get back to you asap. Thanks. BigCat82 (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
TFA
Quagga - precious again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Equus (genus)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Equus (genus) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Rodent
| On 15 August 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rodent, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that rodents are characterized by their continuously-growing, razor sharp incisors? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rodent. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- I will be away till Thursday so hope you can keep an eye on the FAC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Equus (genus)
The article Equus (genus) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Equus (genus) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Equus (genus) has been nominated for Did You Know
| Hello, LittleJerry. Equus (genus), an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated for Did you know consideration to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 18:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
Tiger again
Hi man, this is the first time I don't agree with you lol. The reason I added Amur tigers preying on adult brown bears is that this fact is not known by most people. If you read different forums on carnivores, most would agree that tigers can only prey on young brown bear cubs. People holding this view surprisingly include biologists and zoologists until I quoted them the 2 sources. Many do know tigers (though very rarely) preying on adult elephants and rhinos but not on adult brown bears. The main reasons for this are probably because studies on Siberian tigers are not as extensive as the Bengal tigers and thus this fact is rarely mentioned in literatures and the fact that adult Ussuri brown bears on average are considerably larger than adult tigers (some approaching Kodiak bears in size) and thus people have a hard time imagining how a smaller predator preying on a bigger predator. Since tigers attacking adult elephants and adult rhinos are worth mentioning and the information is already in the article, I think we should also briefly mention tigers can take down adult brown bears as well since tiger predation on adult brown bears is more common than tiger predation on adult elephants but this fact is not as well known by the general public. What do you think? BigCat82 (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- As I already stated, it already mentions that they prey on bears and we don't need to specify that they are adults anymore than other prey are. The reason why we specify adult elephants and rhinos is because tiger normally prey on calves and rarely adults. This is not the case for the others. I don't see why you want to get into so much detail on tigers and bears. LittleJerry (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- The purpose of wikipedia is to spread correct knowledge and I just found most people including scientists who haven't looked into this topic in details generally think adult brown bears are immune to tiger attack, even after reading our tiger articles as they still assumed that particular sentence refers to brown bear cubs only. Of course you are completely right in an editors' point of view, but people tend to believe in what they want to believe so if we don't go to slightly more details, I'm afraid most readers will still believe tigers prey on brown bear cubs even if after reading our tiger article because we didn't explicitly say so and tigers preying on another bigger adult predator is beyond the imagination of most people. Besides I read most children, young adult books and online animal information sites (without quoting any sources of course) and they say brown bears have no natural enemy once reaching maturity due to their sheer sizes and they dominate every other predator species in their respective habitats blah blah blah... So I wish to correct one of the most frequently seen misconception rooted in most people mind since their childhood. If you don't agree I'm fine with that but I just think we can do a tad bit more here to clarify it. BigCat82 (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I still have to disagree. There's no reason to specify the age of the bears. Its redundant and what other people choose to believe is not our problem. LittleJerry (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I wish I can always ignore what other people choose to believe lol. I see many good editors have retired probably as a result of constant content disputes / vandalism on their hard work, and one will feel tired just to repeat the same procedures and complaints constantly to restore the articles. You have put tremendous efforts in improving lots of articles and it is hard to monitor each of them - a few clicks from vandals can jeopardize many hours of hard work and can remain undetected for months or even years in less popular articles. I don't know how long I will remain active but before I retire from Wikipedia I will keep patrolling and improving the articles as long as Wikipedia still have good editors around. BigCat82 (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Equus (genus)
| On 26 September 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Equus (genus), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the genus Equus became extinct in the Americas about 12,000 years ago and remained that way until the Conquistadors reintroduced it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Equus (genus). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Dinosaur
I recall you were interested in collaborating on another dinosaur article once? Was it Ankylosaurus? Are you still editing, or are you going on a break? FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Incredible that Apatosaurus was exploded right during the FAC. Researchers had 100 years to do it, and they chose that very month, hehe. I think we should wait for the "dust to settle" before nominating it again. If you're still here, Ankylosaurus still seems a lot more taxonomically safe. Perhaps IJReid is interested? There are no other ankylosaur FAs, by the way, and this one is probably the most famous taxon... FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk Sounds good. Again, I'm probably be a part timer. I think that Description and Paleobiology should be separated. LittleJerry (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- There is info about the tail club and armour that makes more sense under palaebiology, but I guess the purely descriptive parts about these should stay under description? FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk I think most of the armor and skull stuff could be in description but the stuff about the power of the tail swing is more paleobiology. Description deals with form while paleobiology deals with function. I think we'll need some more information on the latter. LittleJerry (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- There is info about the tail club and armour that makes more sense under palaebiology, but I guess the purely descriptive parts about these should stay under description? FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk Sounds good. Again, I'm probably be a part timer. I think that Description and Paleobiology should be separated. LittleJerry (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, can you send me the ANkylosaurus paper you got at the source request? I think I'll do the taxonomy/classification section. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, You'll have to email me first. I can't attach a file from Wiki. LittleJerry (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- The main problems I see with Ankylosaurus now are that some of the current article text is not fully supported by the sources (such as the etymology), so we probably have to rewrite/doublecheck all of it. Another thing is that there seems to be inconsistent citation style. Last, since this became a GA already in 2006, we can't submit it for GA review, even though it probably wouldn't even pass by today's GA standards. All problems we can surely fix, but it needs to be solid before FAC, then. It will only be my second nomination I haven't taken through GA first, but I guess you may have more experience with direct-to-FAC articles... FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk. I'm afraid I haven't. But anyway, do you think we'll need more sources? LittleJerry (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- I looked for sources yesterday, and I couldn't find much. Seems that Ankylosaurus itself went largely ignored by scientists through much of the 20th century, though it was was popular among the public. I've found some books (though incomplete) that could be used to expand some sections, this for palaeoecology:[41], and these for classification:[42][43] (I'll probably deal with those) You could perhaps use this detailed description of the teeth by Walter Coombs:[44] Other than that, most of what we need seems to be already cited in the article. The Carpenter paper may cite some other papers that could perhaps help (some other Coombs papers that briefly discuss Ankylosaurus elements), but he already synthesises a lot of the past findings. The final article would probably be about the length of Nigersaurus, if not longer. FunkMonk (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk. I'm afraid I haven't. But anyway, do you think we'll need more sources? LittleJerry (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- I've now squeezed out pretty much all I could about history, classification, and palaeoecology, so now only description and palaeobiology need to be written. I've listed the article for copy edit already[45], since it generally takes well over a months for this to happen once requested. Better let some of this time pass while we work, instead of having to wait two months after we've finished... FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, I'll look into some paleobiology tonight or tommorrow. Do you think the research on Euoplocephalus airflow could be mentioned here? LittleJerry (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ankylosaurus seems to have similar sinuses. As long as we make it clear, by for example mentioning the sinuses of Ankylosaurus and then saying how the feature is thought to have functioned in the related genus. But also, keep in mind which specimen number the studied Euoplocephalus skulls have. They might belong to one of the genera that have recently been revived... FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- It is. AMNH 5405 LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, given that most Ankylosaurus fossils have been found in the US and the genus was first described by an American, I think we should use American spelling. LittleJerry (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- It is. AMNH 5405 LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ankylosaurus seems to have similar sinuses. As long as we make it clear, by for example mentioning the sinuses of Ankylosaurus and then saying how the feature is thought to have functioned in the related genus. But also, keep in mind which specimen number the studied Euoplocephalus skulls have. They might belong to one of the genera that have recently been revived... FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, I'll look into some paleobiology tonight or tommorrow. Do you think the research on Euoplocephalus airflow could be mentioned here? LittleJerry (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'll look them over tonight. LittleJerry (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, I can't access the first one. LittleJerry (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Weird, but now I've sent it to your mail. I was thinking of requesting an internal peer review at the dinosaur project once we're done, since we can't get a second GA review anyway. I can take care of the intro, seems the description and palaeobiology sections are quite some mouthfuls. When you get to it, it may be worthy to note that Carpenter's suggested plate arrangement is "just" his hypothesis, I've seen other researchers disagreeing with it, though only in blog posts. FunkMonk (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- By the way, which term do you think we should use throughout, "armor plates" or "osteoderms"? The sources are inconsistent. FunkMonk (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'd prefer osteoderms. LittleJerry (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, the description section already mentions plate arrangement, I'm focusing on how well they protected the animal in paleobiology. Its hard though to wade though all the technical language. You may what to look it over when I'm done. I feel like I may not have give the fore and hindlimb muscles justice. LittleJerry (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- No problem, I'll give it all a look once you're done, will probably add some bits and pieces. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, I think I'm pretty much done with paleobiology. Do you think we should use "ankylosaur" or "ankylosaurid"? LittleJerry (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think ankylosaur refers to the broader Ankylosauria, whereas ankylosaurid is specific for Ankylosauridae (and ankylosaurine for Ankylosaurinae). FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I think we should make that clear in the article. LittleJerry (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, don't think the sources say it specifically, though, so not sure how to cite it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- If you feel palaeobiology is done, I can take a second look of the sources now to see if I find anything that could be added. The Intro will probably be three paragraphs long, but I have not added much on description yet, since what's in the article now doesn't appear final. There is a PD image of some teeth and a diagram of the sinuses, wither of which could be added if we end up with more "space". FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, Okay go ahead. LittleJerry (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Done, now I only need to cover the Carpenter description, and Coombs' tooth description. Then I'll expand the intro and perhaps add some images, and we should be done. Could you perhaps add citation templates to some of the "bare" references and the likes? I really hate citation editing... FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Done, now I only need to cover the Carpenter description, and Coombs' tooth description. Then I'll expand the intro and perhaps add some images, and we should be done. Could you perhaps add citation templates to some of the "bare" references and the likes? I really hate citation editing... FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, Okay go ahead. LittleJerry (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- If you feel palaeobiology is done, I can take a second look of the sources now to see if I find anything that could be added. The Intro will probably be three paragraphs long, but I have not added much on description yet, since what's in the article now doesn't appear final. There is a PD image of some teeth and a diagram of the sinuses, wither of which could be added if we end up with more "space". FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, don't think the sources say it specifically, though, so not sure how to cite it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I think we should make that clear in the article. LittleJerry (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think ankylosaur refers to the broader Ankylosauria, whereas ankylosaurid is specific for Ankylosauridae (and ankylosaurine for Ankylosaurinae). FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, I think I'm pretty much done with paleobiology. Do you think we should use "ankylosaur" or "ankylosaurid"? LittleJerry (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- No problem, I'll give it all a look once you're done, will probably add some bits and pieces. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- By the way, which term do you think we should use throughout, "armor plates" or "osteoderms"? The sources are inconsistent. FunkMonk (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Weird, but now I've sent it to your mail. I was thinking of requesting an internal peer review at the dinosaur project once we're done, since we can't get a second GA review anyway. I can take care of the intro, seems the description and palaeobiology sections are quite some mouthfuls. When you get to it, it may be worthy to note that Carpenter's suggested plate arrangement is "just" his hypothesis, I've seen other researchers disagreeing with it, though only in blog posts. FunkMonk (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, I can't access the first one. LittleJerry (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'll be done with Ankylosaurus today (only need to finish armor description). After that, I guess we should proof read to make sure it is all American spelling. FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I think I'm finished cleaning up the references and formating. LittleJerry (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm done with the last stuff now, so all it needs is a few double checks.. I don't think I dare ask the cpy editor to look over the new text, he seems a bit diasatisfied...[50] FunkMonk (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Here's a draft for a FAC blurb: "This article is about one of the most famous dinosaurs, and the first member of its group of armored dinosaurs to be nominated for FAC. Only incomplete remains of this genus are known, and few scientific papers have been devoted to it, so the article mainly relies on a 2004 monograph, which is the most detailed account of the animal published so far. Some info has also been included from papers about the Ankylosauria suborder in general as well as closely related genera." FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, the copyeditor wouldn't get around until a couple days. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, I also think it should be noted that some of the information comes from studies of other species or ankylosaurs in general. LittleJerry (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think this is noted already, though? Some of the studies are also about ankylosaurs in general, which is noted as well when it is the case. I think the new sections under Palaeobiology are too short to be warranted though, but no biggie. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I meant in the FAC blurb. LittleJerry (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think this is noted already, though? Some of the studies are also about ankylosaurs in general, which is noted as well when it is the case. I think the new sections under Palaeobiology are too short to be warranted though, but no biggie. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, I also think it should be noted that some of the information comes from studies of other species or ankylosaurs in general. LittleJerry (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, the copyeditor wouldn't get around until a couple days. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Here's a draft for a FAC blurb: "This article is about one of the most famous dinosaurs, and the first member of its group of armored dinosaurs to be nominated for FAC. Only incomplete remains of this genus are known, and few scientific papers have been devoted to it, so the article mainly relies on a 2004 monograph, which is the most detailed account of the animal published so far. Some info has also been included from papers about the Ankylosauria suborder in general as well as closely related genera." FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Are we waiting for the copyeditor to return at this point? FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk He said he'll get to it tomorrow evening. LittleJerry (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Alright. I don't like when image placement is changed and text is snipped during copy edit, but I'll just change that later on. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm ready when you are. LittleJerry (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Cool, is he done? FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yep. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, should I just nominate it, then you can add your name? It'll probably take a while before we get comments, so we can do further proofreading during the wait. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ready to sign: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ankylosaurus/archive1 FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, should I just nominate it, then you can add your name? It'll probably take a while before we get comments, so we can do further proofreading during the wait. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yep. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Cool, is he done? FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm ready when you are. LittleJerry (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Alright. I don't like when image placement is changed and text is snipped during copy edit, but I'll just change that later on. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nice we already got some comments, I'll join in. By the way, this paper was just released, and it seems to affect all ankylosaurs, perhaps it warrants a mention under palaeobiology? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/zoj.12293/abstract "Ankylosaurs had reduced, slowly replacing teeth, as evidenced from dental histology, suggesting that they relied greatly on their tongues and hyobranchia for feeding." FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm on it. LittleJerry (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk. Added information in. I think you may what to look it over some. I can't find "paraglossal bone" for example. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, I think the problem is that they are using bird anatomy terms that do not necessarily have human analogues, and therefore don't have articles. Perhaps it would be worth requesting that paper to see if there is more interesting stuff? For example, the slow tooth replacement isn't currently featured in the Wiki article. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- We'll probably be asked to explain what it is. LittleJerry (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk Could you fix the part about the loops and sound? I couldn't find in the 2011paper why they think them being a reasonce chamber is plausible but maybe you will since your better at looking through techincal language. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Can you send it to me? FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- You can access the paper freely. Just click on the title. LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, nevermind. I got it. LittleJerry (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- You can access the paper freely. Just click on the title. LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Can you send it to me? FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk Could you fix the part about the loops and sound? I couldn't find in the 2011paper why they think them being a reasonce chamber is plausible but maybe you will since your better at looking through techincal language. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- We'll probably be asked to explain what it is. LittleJerry (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, I think the problem is that they are using bird anatomy terms that do not necessarily have human analogues, and therefore don't have articles. Perhaps it would be worth requesting that paper to see if there is more interesting stuff? For example, the slow tooth replacement isn't currently featured in the Wiki article. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk. Added information in. I think you may what to look it over some. I can't find "paraglossal bone" for example. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm on it. LittleJerry (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- On Smilodon, maybe you and IJReid should nominate Apatosaurus again first? I'm currently reading the sabertooth book, it's pretty good, if you can get it at a library or something, we can better synchronise our writing. The writer, Mauricio Antón (world's leading mammal paleoartist) also states that the sabertooth cat restorations by Charles R. Knight "have stood the test of time in a remarkable way, thanks to the rigor and beautiful simplicity of his working methology", so we can safely include them in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, this paper about ankylosaur classification just came out minutes ago, it is open access (will give it a look later): http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14772019.2015.1059985#abstract FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, IJReid and I won't renominate until September. LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, but maybe you should plan what Gilmore images you should use, and see if it even makes a big difference to the current article? With the current space in the article, I can't imagine more than two or three? Images are often replaced during an after nominations, isn't of much consequence. FunkMonk (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, IJReid and I won't renominate until September. LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- I will rework the taxonomy section of Smilodon sporadically in the coming time. FunkMonk (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. Is it okay if I work on paleobiology after you change the description section as I think certain parts of that section belong in paleobiology (e. g. the angle in which the cat can open its mouth). LittleJerry (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Some things to do, I'll merge the species list into the rest of the text, and instead have an evolution section. For this, a cladogram from this paper[51] would be nice, I'll ask IJReid about it. I've also broken up some other sections, to be more in line with other extinct mammal FAs. And another thing, what do you think about the taxobox image? The photo itself looks good aesthetically, but I'm not sure it shows the animal clearly (dark, not so sharp). I also think this restoration of S. populator[52] should be added when there is room, it is the best restoration of that species we have. I'll also add a collapsible synonym list as in Paraceratherium. FunkMonk (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with you on the taxbox image. I replaced it. I'll work on rearranging the paleobiology section later today or tommorrow. LittleJerry (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- As you suggested elsewhere, most in the skull and limbs section is not description but behaviour, so I've moved it down. Might need new titles. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, we'll have to use American spelling for this article too. Didn't you also do so for Columbian mammoth? LittleJerry (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- We can, but we don't have to see:[53] In any case, this animal is not unique to the US (same with the mammoth). By the way, I think each section of the article can probably be at least doubled, based on the text and references in the Sabertooth book. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know what English spellings South American countries use, but I think American English is appropriate since the animal has mostly been found in the La Brea Tar Pits. I hope thats okay with you. LittleJerry (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Fine with me, and feel free to fix it if you see me making any errors. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- I nominated this (high res version) image[54] for deletion because the uploader had other images where the background photo was copyrighted. But I was thinking now that if I paint out the potentially copyrighted background, it could maybe be useful anyway under social behaviour, as I did here:[55] What do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds okay. I don't think the mammoth/elephant is ideal, Smilodon seems to have mostly preyed on bison. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- After having read almost the entire sabertooth book, this warrants a further comment. Antón points out that there were no bisons in South America, so S. populator would have had a different diet than S. fatalis, including elephants (though S. fatalis would also have fed on young elephants). So we should be sure that we are not too S. fatalis-centric. FunkMonk (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, will fix it later today, I do think there's some evidence of elephant hunting, in any case, the image is nice for showing several individuals. By the way, I'd really like some kind of image of S. gracilis, but it seems to be very little known, though I guess there might be some diagrams in Cope's original description. Will have to find that one... Know what the citation is? FunkMonk (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, Maybe this?
- Thanks, sadly no image of the specimen (which seems to be a scrap of tooth), but I'll cite the paper anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think we should continue this conversation at the Smilodon TalkPage. LittleJerry (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, sadly no image of the specimen (which seems to be a scrap of tooth), but I'll cite the paper anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds okay. I don't think the mammoth/elephant is ideal, Smilodon seems to have mostly preyed on bison. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- I nominated this (high res version) image[54] for deletion because the uploader had other images where the background photo was copyrighted. But I was thinking now that if I paint out the potentially copyrighted background, it could maybe be useful anyway under social behaviour, as I did here:[55] What do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Fine with me, and feel free to fix it if you see me making any errors. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know what English spellings South American countries use, but I think American English is appropriate since the animal has mostly been found in the La Brea Tar Pits. I hope thats okay with you. LittleJerry (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- We can, but we don't have to see:[53] In any case, this animal is not unique to the US (same with the mammoth). By the way, I think each section of the article can probably be at least doubled, based on the text and references in the Sabertooth book. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, we'll have to use American spelling for this article too. Didn't you also do so for Columbian mammoth? LittleJerry (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- As you suggested elsewhere, most in the skull and limbs section is not description but behaviour, so I've moved it down. Might need new titles. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with you on the taxbox image. I replaced it. I'll work on rearranging the paleobiology section later today or tommorrow. LittleJerry (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Today's Featured Article: Notification
This is to inform you that Tammar wallaby, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 3 December 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Precious again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
TFAR
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Rodent --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Rather than putting an unexplained alternative version on the TFAR page, you should discuss variations in the blurb with Dank, when the article is scheduled. I thought it was some glitch in the system. Don't bother about it now, though, as the article will be scheduled in the next 24 hours or so. Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
TFAR
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Pinniped - that was fast ;) - top of this page looks strange ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks LittleJerry (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Looks good, precious again, - a service of WP:QAI ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks LittleJerry (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Kentrosaurus diagram
Hi there. I've noticed that you requested a scale diagram from Dinoguy. However, File:Paranthodon scale.png is actually the right size for Kentrosaurus, and the stegosaur silhouette is of Kentrosaurus. I was wondering if you would like me to rename it on commons for usage on the Kentrosaurus page, as I am creating a new version for Paranthodon anyways. If not, ok, I will then just overwrite it with the new version. IJReid discuss 21:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- IJReid, okay. LittleJerry (talk)
- So you would like me to rename it? IJReid discuss 21:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, go ahead. LittleJerry (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- So you would like me to rename it? IJReid discuss 21:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
EMU FAC
Did you have any more points you wanted to raise at the Emu FAC? I'm hoping the review will wind up before long so that I can nominate something else. 13:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Cwmhiraeth (talk)
- Not really. I mostly focus on images and sources when doing FAC reviews. LittleJerry (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your contribution. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not really. I mostly focus on images and sources when doing FAC reviews. LittleJerry (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 14 September
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 Jaguar page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter 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) 00:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Striped skunk
I could do, though I'll need to find some references first. Any suggestions? Preferably not amateur animal websites. Mariomassone (talk) 07:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Never mind, I've already started. Mariomassone (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- That would be great. Mariomassone (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Kong contentment
Still itching too much not to scratch again, I decided to give it one more shot and try out "gorilla-like ape" as a reasonable compromise that avoids the controversial straight "gorilla" ID, even though it adds to the already slightly over-the-limit plot summary word count. I was very pleasantly surprised to find that you had exactly the same idea and beat me to it. Happy editing! 66.81.222.178 (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
P.S. As a token of appreciation, herewith a useful little tip to cure the annoying floating-references problem now apparent just under this section: add "reflist-talk" in double curly brackets at the end of the relevant section and the refs will then appear in a neat dashed box in that location. 66.81.222.178 (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Section "P. o. palustris in the Pantanal" in the article "Jaguar"
Hello,
Can you please move the photos and information, in the section "P. o. palustris in the Pantanal", in the article 'Jaguar', to the article "Pantanal jaguar"? Moreover, can you please add a link to the article "Pantanal jaguar", in the sentence "P. o. palustris (the largest subspecies, weighing more than 135 kg or 300 lb):[26] The Pantanal regions of Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil, along the Paraguay River into Paraguay and northeastern Argentina", in the section "Geographical variation", in the article "Jaguar"?
Thank you Leo1pard (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited South American sea lion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lek. 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) 10:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
This dispute case can be found at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Jesus. This notice has been sent to you by Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy Christmas!
|
|
Happy Christmas! | |
| Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas
Know we have different ideas about who Jesus was, but I hope you had a merry Christmas. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- You don't know what my ideas about Jesus are, but thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
c*mpr*sed *f
I see you've been "corrected" by the super-pedant extraordinaire. Who isn't even right, but who are we to think so. I did enjoy the Guardian article, though. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Seems to have been a spree:[56] FunkMonk (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, he does it every day. Maybe he doesn't realize he's on camera. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Teleost, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guppies. 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) 09:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Stegosaurus intro
I'm working on smoothing out the lede now, but is there anything you think is currently omitted that should be included? Although short, I'm not sure what else from the main article we need to summarize there. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I guess you already did a good job. Maybe you could expand the first paragraph with some info on the species? LittleJerry (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Teleost you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
administrators' noticeboard/incidents: Jesus page
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Let's hope we can finally reach consensus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The article Teleost you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Teleost for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
TFA
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Stegoceras
I think I can get moving soon, just got back into writing at bluebuck... So should we do the usual, I start with history/classification, you take paleobiology, and we both add stuff to description? By the way, your talk page is getting awfully long, considered archiving it? FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- @FunkMonk: Okay then. As for my talkpage. I don't know how to archive. LittleJerry (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Wow, didn't realise how many papers have been devoted to this dinosaur... Seems you have some that I can't find, do you have Suess, H-D.; Galton, P. (1987) paper? FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I left a link at your talk page. LittleJerry (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, haha, I'm not too used to Researchgate, I only had some useless html after downloading from the link, so I thought the link had expired! But I see you actually have to do do it from the page itself, so downloading now, thanks. And by the way, I've added some more citations to the article, perhaps some of them you don't have... FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Strange, it still fails downloading, though I can see it on the link page... Did you manage to download it all? FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. I send a file to your email. LittleJerry (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! I now have almost everything written about this guy... Anything in the literature list you need? FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Still waiting for the article I requested. Can we continue on your talkpage? LittleJerry (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! I now have almost everything written about this guy... Anything in the literature list you need? FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. I send a file to your email. LittleJerry (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Strange, it still fails downloading, though I can see it on the link page... Did you manage to download it all? FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, haha, I'm not too used to Researchgate, I only had some useless html after downloading from the link, so I thought the link had expired! But I see you actually have to do do it from the page itself, so downloading now, thanks. And by the way, I've added some more citations to the article, perhaps some of them you don't have... FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I left a link at your talk page. LittleJerry (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 6 June
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 Stegoceras page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter 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) 00:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
| |
| giraffe | |
|---|---|
| ... you were recipient no. 194 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for Smilodon, one of the best known prehistoric mammals, and the best known saber-toothed cat! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for Apatosaurus, a "sauropod commonly associated with but separate from Brontosaurus"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for Ankylosaurus, "one of the most famous dinosaurs"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you today for the black mamba, an article with a checquered history, also an article "that kids like to stick superlative facts in (eagles, most poisonous snakes, supergiant stars) at a "stable version" type level to deal with future arguments."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Seven years! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
FAC voluntary mentoring scheme
During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.
Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| For this. Simply beautiful. Airplaneman ✈ 18:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC) |
Noms
I'd have thought the other two of us would also be co-noms? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Chiswick Chap: I thought you guys would add your names like we did before. LittleJerry (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
A page you started (Roar (vocalization)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Roar (vocalization), LittleJerry!
Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Wow, interesting and good topic for an article! I've added three extra sources from Google Books which all look quite interesting in their own right.
To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Hello - I didn't want to template an experienced editor for an apparent cut-paste page move, so here's a quick note instead. If I made a mistake, please let me know. Thanks. --Dstone66 (talk) (contribs) 06:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 19 September
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 Roar (vocalization) page, your edit caused a PMC 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) 00:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roar (vocalization), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rostrum. 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) 11:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Culture
Hi, I'm a little upset by your recent and now repeated comments on the place of living things such as mammals in culture. We have collaborated over the years on numerous articles, and I would have expected you to be collegiate if not comradely. If I have done anything to offend you, tell me, by email if you like, and I will do what I can to make amends. On the substantive question of the role of mammals in culture, there is surely no doubt at all that they have been extremely important to humankind throughout recorded history and beyond: indeed, the main things shown in the earliest art that exists such as in the Lascaux cave paintings is predominantly of mammals. Why would you be against this? I am both sorry and surprised, and hope to hear what it is that is troubling you. Your wiki-colleague, Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, LittleJerry. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 14 December
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 Grasshopper page, your edit caused a DOI 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) 00:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Happy Christmas!
A very Happy Christmas and a restful Wikibreak!
Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Pinniped Edit
You reverted a change I made that was to remove a vandal edit. Please take a peek at it | here. After your change, the grammar is not right (" With the the Japanese sea lion...".
If you think the version I restored was wrong, please drop me a note. Otherwise, I'm not going to revert your edit back, but leave that to you. I don't want to provoke a back-and-forth.
Anyways, Happy Editing!
KNHaw (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Bear has been nominated for Did You Know
Hello, LittleJerry. Bear, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
DYK for Bear
On 22 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bear, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that bears are classified as carnivores, but most are omnivorous and the panda (pictured) is almost entirely vegetarian? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bear. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bear), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Mifter (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thylacosmilus
Hi, I'm thinking of working on Thylacosmilus soon, and given our collaboration on the similar Smilodon, you're of course welcome to join if you want. I want to use the book I acquired for the old article for more than just that... And the literature on Thylacosmilus doesn't seem so extensive and confusing either. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm not familiar with the animal and I'm not sure if I can get into it. As of now, I plan on Octopus being my last FAC. However, if you decide to do another iconic prehistoric animal or dinosaur, I might reconsider. I may find iconic sauropods like Brachiosaurus or Camarasaurus (both macronarian rather than diplodocoid sauropods) tempting. In the meantime would you have the time to GA review octopus or one of Chiswick Chap's other articles? LittleJerry (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Awww, your last? I've been thinking of Brachiosaurus too, it's much less taxonomically messy (though we'd have to be careful about using sources specifically about the split-off Giraffatitan/B. brancai) than Camarasaurus (more species, more specimens), and of course much more famous... HMallison was working on the article some years ago, maybe he wants to add something. And yeah, I'd been thinking of reviewing octopus, might do it some time this week (unless someone beats me). FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm not familiar with the animal and I'm not sure if I can get into it. As of now, I plan on Octopus being my last FAC. However, if you decide to do another iconic prehistoric animal or dinosaur, I might reconsider. I may find iconic sauropods like Brachiosaurus or Camarasaurus (both macronarian rather than diplodocoid sauropods) tempting. In the meantime would you have the time to GA review octopus or one of Chiswick Chap's other articles? LittleJerry (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Octopus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The article Octopus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Octopus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
As food
Hi, "As food" was better. "Consumption" is both a big word that does the work of a short one, only less well; and it means tuberculosis, an unfortunate overtone to say the least. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- I changed it due to the FAC request. LittleJerry (talk)
Notice of Edit Warring on Lion page
Hello. You appear to have made some reverts lately on Lion. Please be aware that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts on a single page within a 24 hour period. Rather than reverting edits, please consider using the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. The dispute resolution processes may also help. Excessive reverting may result in a loss of editing privileges. Greedo8 14:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Greedo, you've made a mistake. I did one revert on the 2nd and one on the 9th. There was no edit warring, especially since the texts reverted were different. LittleJerry (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Teleost scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Teleost article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 2 August 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, always learning! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:LittleJerry reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: ). Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Edit warring at Caelifera
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
RE: striped skunk
May take a while. I'm going abroad in a few hours. Mariomassone (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello there!
Hi! I saw you around a lot on mammals, so I was wondering if you would like to pick up the Forrest's pika for a GAR? However, due to any reason if you are unable to, that would be fine too! I hope you have a great rest of the day! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- Adityavagarwa no thanks. It doesn't interest me. LittleJerry (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Reversion/Removal of Crocs Vs. Gators Section
Hi there, Please discuss.Mikalra (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Ankylosaurus scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Ankylosaurus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 22 October 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 22, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Quarter Million Award
Your joint work with Funkmonk is further recognised! William Harris • (talk) • 08:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
| This editor won the Quarter Million Award for bringing Smilodon to Featured Article status. |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bat you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The article Bat you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bat for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Belated MA for Octopus
|
|
The Million Award |
| For your contributions to bring Octopus (estimated annual readership: 1,250,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! – Rhinopias (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC) |
If you're interested...
I have an idea for a cleanup collaboration. There was an editor who was very interested in snake articles, among them Black mamba, and was banned for socking and pushing POV on snake articles. The black mamba article looks to be in good shape (and was promoted to GA), but I did find some issue with sourcing (I think left from that editor). In essence, it needs a good going over to ensure that the material cited by references actually matches up with those references, cut back on some flowery language and scour the net for more material. There are no snake FAs and I am wondering whether this will end up being light or very heavy work. Are you interested in co-nomming it for FAC (we can check sourcing section by section)? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'll have to think about it. I'm already working on bat and Elasmosaurus. LittleJerry (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Bat has been nominated for Did You Know
Hello, LittleJerry. Bat, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Multiple coverage of echolocation in Bat
You'll see there's a discussion of this on the talk page. I believe this is Dunkleosteus's bit? We'd best fix it as it'll only cause a fuss later. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Then we better ping him. LittleJerry (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
DYK for Bat
On 25 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bat, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the diets of different species of bat include frogs, fish, other bats, nectar, and blood? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bat. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bat), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
"Mortality"
I really don't agree with this choice of heading here, and I am deeply disappointed in your willingness to reinstate it after an explained revert, in editwarring fashion. This should have been taken to the talk page, at the very least. Many natural history articles have a Predators, parasites and diseases section. I can't say I like the loss of all three subsection headings, either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, LittleJerry. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Ankylosaurus scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Ankylosaurus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 15, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 15, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Percentages in Bat
Hi, not sure what we want to do about Tim's percentages? He prefers "%" despite the MoS. Needs answering, anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Seems to have settled down, he reverted himself. I shall be away now for the holiday, so Happy Christmas! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Ankylosaurus
| Hello, LittleJerry. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Ankylosaurus at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! – Corinne (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC) |
Roosting
- Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Stegoceras scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Stegoceras has been scheduled as today's featured article for 26 February 2018. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 26, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frog, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moche (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Franklin D. Roosevelt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fascist Italy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Octopus scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Octopus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 30, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 30, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for today's octopus, one of the most intelligent invertebrates, rivaled only by other cephalopods"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Lion
| Hello, LittleJerry. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Lion at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! This is a long article and may take me up to a week to copy-edit; please be patient. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 01:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC) |
- Hi LittleJerry; I've added subsections to the Cultural depictions section and done my best to improve the text there, but I think it needs less detail; perhaps a four-or-five paragraph summary on the subject and a link to the main article would suffice. I also removed the empty "Notes" section as redundant; feel free to replace it if you wish. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 01:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Black mamba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diurnal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Jaguar
I hope you see that I'm in no disagreement with the Jaguar being third largest. I'm merely trying to make sure the sources I found that are younger than Seymor also do not get removed because they are very reliable sources.Mcelite (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tiger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diurnal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Grasshopper scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Grasshopper has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 26 November 2018. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 26, 2018. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the article, done in collaboration! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Today, thank you for your share of Brachiosaurus, "one of the most iconic dinosaurs"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
your 2nd nomination
Hi LittleJerry: Great! that you won't give up on this one!! I noticed there are several #REDIRECT pages, namely Strength comparisons between lions and tigers, Schauenberg's index, Physical comparison of lions and tigers, Comparison of weights of lions and tigers and Comparison of skulls of lions and tigers. Can any of them be used for the same content that is now in the page you nominated for deletion?
Will you announce the nomination also on the tiger talk page, to reach more people? Cheers from BhagyaMani (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Article for WikiJournal?
We've worked on quite a few articles about famous extinct animals over the years, so I was wondering whether we should send one of them to the WikiJournal? I did that with Baryonyx some time ago, and am currently responding to peer review[58] from palaeontologists there. I think Ankylosaurus could be a good contender, as it is very complete and up to date (as well as one of the most famous dinosaurs). FunkMonk (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, I don't think I'll have the time or energy for that. I'm currently waiting for Casliber to finish black mamba for FAC. I also think we should focus on improving T-rex for now. LittleJerry (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know. Maybe. LittleJerry (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations!!
Congratulations for two successful AfD proposals!! — BhagyaMani (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Since the Tiger versus lion page is on my watchlist, I saw that you defend the synthesis template you placed there, and think it is indeed justified: see my recent addition to Tiger#Social_and_daily_activities. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, LittleJerry. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
First edit!
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, A 10 fireplane (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
A 10 fireplane (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I have gone over the venom section now. Wanna give it a last once-over before nominating? Also, I am in two minds about the poisoning of Danie Pienaar and whether it really adds anything. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- Casliber, Okay. Should we list it for copyedit? LittleJerry (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- I am just looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests to see what the timeline is on this. I've not really needed it before, but then again, the usual course is a thorough GA review and then having little content change. This was an unusual situation. I think maybe we can just ask a couple of people, which I will do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
GOCE c/e
| Hello, LittleJerry. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Black mamba at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 08:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)) |
Removal of citations in Lead of Primate
Hi LittleJerry, a short note from me to you regarding the above: I'm OK with the ref removal, since they are redundant to what is in the body of the article. But not for the reason you stated. I quote from WPMoS/Lead: "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."
How about if I restore the citations to the Lead where the material 1st appears, and delete them from the body of the article? Are you OK with that?
And thank you for your efforts toward this article: 65 edits, 6889 characters added since July 2013! As you may have noticed, I have been editing this article for 4 days...
Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- No. It is better that cites are used for the article. No cites in the lead is that set in stone but it is preferred for FAC. A FA should not have them. LittleJerry (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Austral season's greetings
|
|
Austral season's greetings |
| Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC) |
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Pan (genus) into Common chimpanzee. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Black mamba
See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Black_mamba/archive1#Initial_comments_by_Samsara - first query is from the books you have (I think). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Explanation of your reversion of my Lion edits
Thank you for you explanation of the above at BhagyaManiTalk. If you revert any additional edits of mine at Lion, I would appreciate a more detailed reason than "totally unnecessary". Do you know if there any WP guidelines for the titles and order of the sections for Species articles? If not, do you know who I should contact regarding creating a consensus for such guidelines? I would welcome collaborating with you regarding this if there are no guidelines. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- There's no written policy in stone but it is the standard for most species articles. Look at most of the FA animal articles. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I have started overhauling Eastern green mamba - already a GA. Given you have the books, thought this was another we could work together on to push over the FA line. Given the sourcing issues the banned editor had, we'll have to recheck everything though. Slowly working my way through the snake material. Western green mamba to follow....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Casliber, thanks but I have FA fatigue. Is it okay if I mail my books to you? I only needed then for the wiki, you can have them. I should point out that "Fitzsimmons' Snakes of Southern Africa" is not the same book I have. Its a different author. LittleJerry (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah no problem, email away. Thanks for your help to date Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- You can email me your mailing address. I can get to a Post Office that delivers internationally. LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah no problem, email away. Thanks for your help to date Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Casliber, thanks but I have FA fatigue. Is it okay if I mail my books to you? I only needed then for the wiki, you can have them. I should point out that "Fitzsimmons' Snakes of Southern Africa" is not the same book I have. Its a different author. LittleJerry (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Chimpanzee
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chimpanzee you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Chimpanzee
The article Chimpanzee you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chimpanzee for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- LittleJerry, sorry, I missed your ping from the GA1 page (not sure what happened there, I think I had 2 or 3 pings from different places) so this was the first I saw of the process, many apologies. Well done shepherding it through GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Chiswick Chap, that's okay and thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- LittleJerry, sorry, I missed your ping from the GA1 page (not sure what happened there, I think I had 2 or 3 pings from different places) so this was the first I saw of the process, many apologies. Well done shepherding it through GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Merger discussion for World Ocean
An article that you have been involved in editing—World Ocean—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Sdkb (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Plains zebra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mesic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 14:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Reminder
First, thank you for your work improving the coverage of animals. Just a reminder about WP:BRD (I see from previous posts on this page that you already know): Stefan Molyneux is a contentious article as well as subject to arbitration special sanctions about WP:BLP. Please make sure to discuss at its talk page instead of reinstating the challenged edit. Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 12:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Plains zebra
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Plains zebra you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Starsandwhales -- Starsandwhales (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Plains zebra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Plains zebra
The article Plains zebra you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Plains zebra for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Starsandwhales -- Starsandwhales (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Starsandwhales: did you send me the wrong message? LittleJerry (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- This notification was done by a bot, based on me changing the talk page for Plains zebra. The talk page says I passed it, so I have no idea why this message was sent. Starsandwhales (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
European hare scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that European hare has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 11 August 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 11, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)