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.

---

Hi innotata, In case you missed it. I have reviewed the ID, and amended it.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I don't have a problem with the edit you did. It does sound more "encyclopedic". However, most sources that claim that Mr. Horner took votes from Mr. Dayton are basing that on opinion only, rather than any kind of poll data or anything based in fact. Personally, I find it hard to believe that a Democrat would vote for someone that has a lifelong affiliation with the Republican Party of Minnesota just because he didn't win the Republican Primary and decided to run as an Independent. SeanNovack (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read at least one analysis piece (probably more, I can't remember) saying he probably took votes from the DFL as well, as Indepedence Partiers usually do. I'll look at this and other things on Horner later (maybe not any time soon). —innotata 20:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Innotata. My name is Sanjay, and I'm a 1st-year PhD student working on a project aimed at improving the quality of scientific articles on Wikipedia by providing easier access to relevant published refereed articles. I found you on the list of Wikipedians with access to Web of Science and I noticed that you edited a variety of pages pertaining to Birds/Animals. If you are interested in lending your expertise and advice to this research effort, I have posted a set of questions on my talk page - I would greatly appreciate your taking the time to answer any or all of them. The answers will help inform the design of a tool which I believe will benefit the Wikipedia community. Thanks! Sanjaykairam (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on vacation abroad now, so I'll look at this when I get back, in two weeks, if you like. --—innotata 10:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See it's something rather different, and I have a bit of time, so I've responded at your talk page. --—innotata 16:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FSC has gotten backed up due to limited feedback. Your feedback would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you monitor me, or just everyone? (No problem, I need and appreciate it. Just curious.) TCO (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what particularly you're referring to, but I do look through some types of contributions of users now and then (especially Commons and English Wikipedia uploads), if I think I'll find certain things to clean up, categorise, &c. Otherwise I only watch a few project discussion pages and only the talk pages of 4 editors. I certainly don't intend to monitor editors unless there's an immediate problem to track. —innotata 02:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Senator Charles vs Senator Charles Dick. I can't believe that got past me... twice. Good thing I'm not in bomb disposal... JBarta (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern about File:100Yr Bloomberg speaking.jpg, an image that's been used properly for almost 5 years on Wikipedia. This is, as you can see in the image summary, a photograph that I took of Mayor Michael Bloomberg speaking at an event for my non-profit, The Hundred Year Association of New York.

Please note on my talk page that on January 12 2007, the equally helpful Chowbok also had something to say about this image. Yes, way back then. When it was resolved.

I ask you kindly to delete your threat of removing the image. You can read the rationale for use plainly in English in the image summary yourself. If you see something wrong with the way that is coded or notated on the image record, the truly helpful thing to do would be to correct it directly and not to tag it with threatening messages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukevl (talk • contribs) 16:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission: the image needs evidence it was released under a free license—not just "externally" as stated or on Wikipedia—by the copyright holder. As the template on the image description points out, this can be a webpage where a statement of permission is provided, or a confirmation email from the copyright owner, sent or forwarded to the given email address. —innotata 16:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I saw that you had signed up at wikisource:Wikisource:WikiProject Academic Papers, so I thought I'd ask your opinion on scaling up the import of open-access materials, as discussed at wikisource:Wikisource:Scriptorium#Scaling_up_the_import_of_open-access_sources. Thanks and cheers, -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You never explained why you deleted the picture and caption. No doubt you had some good reasons, but could you please share them? JonRichfield (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry—I was also going to identify or ask somebody first, then pick the one best image from those on Commons and link . Somehow, I forgot about all this. I must say, though, I wouldn't have added the image without being more sure of its ID, and a caption saying "…this is probably this species … photographed here" isn't quite what belongs in an article, generally. But for the ID, doesn't seem there can be any doubt—why did you give it as uncertain? And not sure which images should be in the article—perhaps I should try to find a better one. —innotata 16:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK. Sorry about that. As for the "uncertain", two points. Firstly, I am no mammalogist. I took the picture of a palpable ground squirrel, passing through a continent unfamiliar to me, and full of squirrel spp. even more unfamiliar to me. I put the pic into commons unidentified and a nice person, in the Netherlands if I remember correctly, updated my picture caption with a suggested ID. His remark seemed reasonable to me, but he had not proceeded to put the picture into the appropriate article, though it showed more detail than the incumbent picture. So I put it in myself, but in the circumstances it seemed to me irresponsible to label it myself as a positive ID when I could not give an informed opinion in a family at best notorious for changes in systematics. Since the pic and the rationale were conveniently accessible in Commons for the purposes of any interested user, it could not be misleading, and by implication it invited better-equipped editors to correct, delete, or confirm the ID. So much for point one.

Point two is more troublesome. It involves a question of principle. I don't know whether there is some WP guideline excluding any pics without rock-solid, detailed ids, but if there is, it would be a disaster. In biology in reasonable circumstances and proper context it is fairly common and acceptable to supply pictures with incomplete or speculative taxonomy. Conversely, to supply a firm ID on uncertain grounds is heinous. Given the rate at which taxonomy is shifting nowadays (in local botanical circles even the higher taxa might as well be written on slips of paper in a tumble drier, and as for invertebtates...) If you look at say, Milichiidae, you will see that the only species that could be confidently identified down to species level isn't identified at all... it is Apis mellifera!

So, in summary, clearly labelled pictures with explicit uncertainty can be valuable. Confidently labelled pictures often are misleading (I have corrected one or two myself on occasion, and so have several other biologists among our editors.)

In the current example, I leave it to your judgement and schedule what you wish to do about the picture, and no hard feelings or niggles, but I would be curious to see how it turns out, so I have a watch on the page. Cheers, Jon JonRichfield (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with the caption was just that it wasn't the style we want to use, and if the identity was so uncertain there more definitely wouldn't be much value in adding a picture of such quality, or to a species article. I'm no mammalogist, either, but now I'd give the ID certainly now. —innotata 18:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody from the Netherlands? Ah, Ucucha, yes, of course. Again, you can be certain of the ID.

Anyhow, I'm assuming you noticed my edits to Milichiidae: why have you been italicising families, and unitalicising genera and species? And what does "The observation suggests that it would be rewarding to investigate whether there is pheromonal significance" mean? If this is your personal thought it'll have to be removed, since no original research is allowed on Wikipedia. —innotata 18:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here you nonplus me. What I said was neither research, nor any assertion at all; it was direction of the readers' attention to a visible feature of the picture(s) and a remark on its possible significance as a basis for someone else's research if interested. ("Much work remains to be done... blah blah") I do have more material that refers to the assembly of males where females have been feeding, but have not yet presented it (other pressures), but even if I had none, the remark would have been reasonable in context. If that counts as research, then half of every non-trivial article would be research too. Am I missing something? My "personal thought" is altogether too vague a criterion for reasonable purposes. It is perfectly reasonable to highlight a point that most people would have missed (did you notice the bubbles independently? If so, did you attach any significance? Or do you have reason to challenge their possible interest as male attractants?) If the subject had been art, and a picture of Pieta and I had suggested that the face might well be worth considering as an deliberate representation of grief as well as pity, the only reasonable objection might be that in the absence of further context, it was too trivial. In the case of the flies there is nothing to attribute to a citation, there is no personal research, it is not trivial, and the material for verification is right there, in the picture. If I am missing something (as certainly often happens) please help me.

As for the italics, there was no special intention at all; I just missed a lot (sorry!) and thought that all taxonomic dog-classics should be italicised. How far down does it go? Do I italicise a genus? If not, do I italicise say, Passer spp.? JonRichfield (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:No original research is a policy on Wikipedia, and the page explains what this means and why this policy exists. I'll remove the sentence from Milichiidae now.

If it were only that item I would live with it. However, some of your other CRs strike me as unreasonable (such as wanting a *citation* to support the claim that their abdomens fill up as shown in the accompanying photos, when feeding on fluid food...!) I am not prepared to argue the toss. (If I referred to the Eiffel tower as standing out among surrounding buildings and supported my claim as shown in an accompanying photo, that would be OR???) Where do I go for some sort of arbitration and guidelines that you would accept? JonRichfield (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "arbitration and guidelines"? I really have no idea. First off, what do you want to use the images to verify, and are there really no sources discussing this? —innotata 15:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rushing. Back later, but in the meantime I have had an edit clash. I tried hurriedly to merge, but pls check that I didn't mess anything up. JonRichfield (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. The edit conflict clearly didn't mess anything up. —innotata 15:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You italicise only genus and species (and subspecies etc.) names: Passer spp. (sometimes abbreviations like 'spp.' are italicised, but I don't think this is standard), Passer domesticus bactrianus. —innotata 16:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I had a look at some of your did-you-knows, and I thought it might be helpful (or disturbing maybe) to remark on the claim that "In towns, the Cape Sparrow competes with both the native Southern Grey-headed Sparrow and the introduced House Sparrow. Since it is more established around humans in its range than either, it successfully competes with both species". I am no ornithologist, but I live smack in a region where the house sparrow and cape sparrow overlap. In my experience the house sparrow seems to exclude the cape sparrow round houses and in supermarkets (I kid you not!) and public buildings, whereas in the veld and gardens where I live the Cape sparrow seems to hold its own. Before I moved to where I now live, I actually was getting worried about the Cape sparrow, but it seems quite comfortable in our garden-rich suburb. (OH, and "mossie" is the general term for a sparrow in Afrikaans (from Dutch "mus"). It applies as strongly to the house sparrow. If one wishes to refer to both but distinguish, then one must qualify the name such as "groot mossie" for greater sparrow, "gewone mossie" for Cape sparrow, and "huismossie" for house sparrow.) I am not sure on which evidence the claim was made and I also am unsure whether to meddle, as I have a lot on my fork.

1. $%^&* sorry, forgot to add my sigJonRichfield (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article addresses habitat well, also, we have to go by reliable sources: the Cape Sparrow exists in cities, but mostly in suburbs. ("While it occurs in urban centres, it prefers parks, gardens, and other open spaces, and has a low reproductive success in more built-up areas.") So not too different from what you see. Yes, I know that about "Mossie", but the sources I have give it as a name specifically used for the Cape Sparrow, as well as for sparrows and small birds in general. (I've also heard that from a somebody in southern Africa.) I don't think, in context, any changes need be made to the mention of the name. —innotata 19:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, no big deal. In passing, I see that you have edited a lot of material that I had worked on, including a number that needed attention. Thanks. Cheers JonRichfield (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed you removed some categories on Blandings turtle. Is the idea to add only the lowest taxonomy group(think the answer is yes). Is there some document explaining this somewhere. I'll go and correct the turtles articles once I've worked out what is appropriate way. Many turtle articles are only in the category 'Turtles', I didn't think that can be correct, on the other hand being in the full hierarchy is a bit over the top. Anyway, thanks for listening. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the answer's yes. This has already been done for other topics (e.g., most birds), though since this particular article is given as being in on e of two genera, perhaps only the family category should be given. Don't see any particular reason to have genus categories but not sort fully down. —innotata 01:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to start a discussion of the subject in an inappropriate forum, I too have been nonplussed at the category-removal initiative. I echo SunCreator's question: Is there some document explaining this somewhere? The principle appears to me contrary to the power of indexing principles, and I should like to know the rationale. JonRichfield (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the guideline on diffusing large categories enough? What should the category system for turtles look like, if in between sorting to the genus and putting all articles in "Turtles"? And Jon, what are the "indexing principles" you think Wikipedia articles should follow? —innotata 15:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CAT "Particular considerations for categorizing articles:Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs." There is also discussion Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#why_must_diffuse_large_category the key bit seems to be "The problem in a nutshell, is that there are several different ways that people find categorization useful, and there is no single way to optimize them for all those purposes." Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double sorry — I missed your message on my talk, and also didn't realise that it was you that reverted my change, so I've reverted again. It's incompetence rather than malice or deliberate edit warring on my part, so if you want to restore the Spanish spelling, I'll let it be Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. What I've done is initiated a requested move, to see what others would think, and one editor so far has expressed support for using the version with diacritics. I'm not fully convinced the version with diacritics should be used, and I've given my opinion at Talk:Galapagos Islands. —innotata 14:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting this here because you wrote at Talk:Čoček, apologise if it's the wrong place. It looks to me as if IP 83.235.21.132 may be another identity of Karbont/ Balkanstyle. Same cryptic message style, same two hyphens before signature, same talkpage. I'm sorry, I don't know how to add to an existing (archived) debate, or indeed if I am right about this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; I'm not an admin or somebody who ever looks at sockpuppeting. I just noted this since I had seen it done any time this happened at other move requests. I think the closing editor assumed the IP was a sockpuppet, but that editor isn't an admin either. —innotata 14:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Innotata: I see you moved Slate-colored and Bicolored Hawk back to the British spelling. IOC lists the American version on their website, since we are using their english names as the guideline, I moved the articles there. IOC does use the British spelling Grey, so I moved Grey Flycatcher there. Hope you don't mind, but I reverted the hawks back to their IOC spelling. BTW, I requested a move request for Chiloe Wigeon. Discussion involves diacritics. Have a look!....Pvmoutside (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy (WP:ENGVAR) says that we only change from one national variety of English when the subject has national ties. I'll look at the wigeon later; this probably has less of a case for the use of diacritics than the others, but perhaps we need consistency with geographic articles. —innotata 23:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that you reverted the pages: as far as I can tell you simply should not have. There is a policy that does not allow this, and I gave it as the reason for my move. —innotata 23:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a move request, though this probably shouldn't be controversial enough for one. —innotata 00:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was probably the first time the IP fauna vandal ever used the talk page! Shyamal (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP fauna vandal? Well, in any case I'd guess this edit after my warning would be grounds for a block, at least a temporary one. —innotata 16:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits do look different from the fauna vandal, possibly another user in the same dynamic IP range. Shyamal (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a bit of a rush addition, I'll check out exactly what's what, and add other refs if necessary. I'm busy over the August Bank Holiday, so if you want to revert the addition for now, that's fine with me. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hidden-note it out and wait. —innotata 18:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.