I've completed the copyedit of Dugong that you requested at WP:GOCE. Fascinating article! And such a cute creature you could make them into... Pokemon or something :) I've not made a huge number of changes, as you'd already dealt with all the problematic apostrophes etc by the time I got there. The article is perfectly intelligible from my sub-undergraduate level of biology knowledge, but I've wikilinked a few extra words to hopefully make it even more accessible. As for wording, I've re-phrased some parts but without (I hope) substantially changing the meaning; you might want to briefly skim through a composite diff of all the changes I made. I think the prose is now suitable for a GA attempt. It would need a lot more work to get to FA, although I'd be happy to help with that as well when the time comes.

A couple of minor outstanding issues over what goes where;

• First two sentences of "Capture and captivity" seem out of place in this section - maybe move earlier?

• Last paragraph of "Environmental degradation" seems (slightly) out of place in this section - maybe move to the existing third sentence of "Ecology and life history"?

I've also added a few templates to the talk page, plus a possibly useful extra source. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Looked through the composite diff, and nothing seems out of place. I didn't even think of wikilinking words like Kidney or Lung. I've found it sometimes difficult to determine where information best fits in, but I made both of the changes you suggested, they made sense to me. I'll peruse through the seagrass article and related articles, but BBC nature like the Malaysian government has a bad habit of just copying wikipedia! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you were able to modify that image.
Would it be possible to correct the key, changing it from "historic" to "historical"?
"Historic" is wrong in this context.
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, trusting you on this though! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. The two adjectives are quite distinct. "Historic" means of great significance is history. The extinction of a species is historic.

"Historical" means occurring in history but without any overriding importance. By tomorrow, our conversation will be historical, but not historic.

Unless we subsequently become really famous!!

Varlaam (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning vandalism on the page Adélie Penguin. As you are one of the last contributors, serious and English, I speak to you because I do not know how made. Thank you ...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have not forgotten your kind invitation to add something about fungi to the page for Malaysia. Time is the enemy.

Before I do, I would like better to understand your view about editing the biodiversity sections of such pages in the light of what happened on the Antarctica page. I responded to a call on that page to add material about fungi, and structured the section on biodiversity so that each major group of organisms was treated at an equivalent level without the usual bias to animals and plants. It was a little disheartening to see this all re-arranged with a return of the animal / plant bias. There are rather few plant species in Antarctica, and only two species of flowering plants, so why give them a paragraph of their own, and consign the fungi, with well over 1000 species to a final catch-all paragraph lumped with all the other groups which are also species rich and also at least as important as plants?

The sentence about fungal conservation was removed as being "meaningless". In fact it was very informative: it provided evidence that someone somewhere has been thinking about the topic.

I would like to go back to the Antarctica page and restore the previous text on biodiversity, but don't want to involve anyone in fruitless changes, least of all myself.

With kind regards, Middgeaugh-Botteaugh (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Antartica page is rated as a Featured Article, and one of the editors who works with FA promotion and downgrades posted that it needed work to make it an FA. Due to this I went through and formatted the entire page, of which biodiversity was a part. As a first point, there's not enough text there to divide it into different subsections, so subheaders are unhelpful. Just making different subsections doesn't mean that they're treated at an equivalent level. I rearranged them based on the amount of text (which is the real measure of equivalence). Fungi and protists have a very small amount of prose for each of them, so giving them their own paragraphs, let alone sections, would be bad style. The "catch-all" paragraph was necessity based on the information on the page. If one really wanted to redress the balance away from animals and plants the answer is to add more information about Fungi, not to give two lines their own title. I'd be quite up for removing some text on animals if text on one of the lesser explained parts of Antarctic biodiversity replaces it.

As for the sentence I removed, it's fairly intuitive that someone has been thinking about different topics. "Soandso did a study" is not useful information. "Soandsos study resulted in conclusions A and B based on C and D" would be better, and "Due to C and D, A and B" would be the best formulation. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding your edit to Dicopomorpha echmepterygis, please note that Hexapoda is not a synonym of Insecta. The former is a subphylum, while the latter is a class. Hexapoda includes other organisms that are not insects, namely class Entognatha which includes springtails, diplurans, and proturans (the latter are sometimes treated as separate classes).-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the definitive authority in regard to Insect taxonomy? (Is there one?) I've encountered Hexapoda being treated as a class many a time. CMD (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is none. But unless you want to revise all the hundreds of thousands of arthropod articles to follow outdated systems (in which Insecta is a subclass), that is irrelevant. For consistency we are using the most recent accepted phylogenetic system which treats Hexapoda as a subphylum, with Entognatha being separate from Insecta. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the most recently accepted phylogenetic system? This isn't to dispute what you're saying and argue for a change (I really don't think it's all that important what rank different clades get), but just something to know. CMD (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The ranks are unimportant, what matters is consistency.

And please do not expect me to point you to a single page which summarizes all the studies done on athropod relationships. I neither have the time nor the expertise to hunt them all down (I'm currently expanding Caprella mutica under a time limit). It would be really nice if there was one, but higher taxonomic ranks are not governed by any ruling body and Arthropoda particularly has been very controversial. The classification we use is a hybrid of dozens of opinions, and this is one which works.

AFAIK, Hexapoda has traditionally been treated as a superclass. The only rank-based systems that treat it as a class are those that include Entognatha under it as orders or those which treat Hexapoda as a synonym of Insecta (both systems still survive today, mostly in outdated highschool-level textbooks). Both have a long and confusing history ever since Linnaeus used his "Class Insecta" as a wastebasket taxon for all arthropods. See the pages I linked in my first post for the history of their classifications (and do a Google search if you're still not satisfied). If you have any issues with the current system used or if you contest the splitting off of entognathans, please post at WP:WikiProject Arthropods. Until then, do not change any taxoboxes of higher ranks without consensus as you would be affecting thousands of articles.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I at no point in this conversation have desired to go off and change all Insect taxoboxes to have Hexapoda as a class. None of the wikilinks explain why Hexapoda is a Superclass (or subphylum) and not a Class, and neither does google. My questions were due to my writing of Megaphragma mymaripenne, which from google I had found classified as Class Hexapoda. If we use a hybrid, we use a hybrid, I'm fine with that explanation. CMD (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer to your question is "if it's a proper noun". The relevant policy is at WP:MOSCAPS, but I think I'll add it to WP:FNAME as well to avoid confusion. Anaxial (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chipmunkdavis,

I saw you created the map for the Sharks MOU wiki page. Meanwhile the UK alongside with its overseas territories signed the treaty as well. May I ask you to add them to the map? Furthermore, I'd like to suggest to paint all EU member states which are not Signatories themselves in light red (rosé) as the EU signed sperately on behalf of the 27 member states.

Many thanks in advance. Cheers, Andrea

I was in the middle of editing this, adding circles for South Georgia and the BIOT etc., when I found out that earlier versions of the base map included more areas already. If the base map gets fixed, I'll remake the map from the base including the UK etc. I think a softer green may be more appropriate for the other EU states, so as not to give too much contrast, but I'll play around to see what works. Regards, CMD (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello there! would you happen to know who i could go to to participate in this project? many members seem to be inactive, and i wanted to join and perhaps do some needed work. please let me know. Thank you! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The project is, as you noted, not very active. If you want to work on Australian biota, you should go work on Australian biota! No agreement should be needed, and there's always work that can be done. CMD (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you find out anything wrong with the sources used at Van cat, discuss at talk for the first. You're just reverting (editwarring) with an unclear editsummary [1]. If you really have reliable sources supporting Turkish/Kurdish view (I think this is just your fantasy) why to not use them? 109.172.53.161 (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other users are well within wiki spirit to revert your edits, per WP:BRD. Also per BRD, it is your WP:Burden as the user wishing to make the change to establish a WP:CONSENSUS to make this change on the talkpage, before you continue to edit war your change in. CMD (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On that subject, you wrote: With regards to the ref you added to Wildlife of Antarctica, how much of the preceding text did it cover? Previously the paragraph was all covered by the cybertuffle reference, and as I can't access your source and there's no quote I can't tell if it covers all the text preceding in the paragraph or just the one sentence. Regards, CMD (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. The sentence I had in mind for that new ref was the one right before the note. I wasn't sure about the text before that sentence. Thank you for pointing that out; I'll 'jump' the footnote now.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! CMD (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious why you believe you are the resident expert on Serama. Several things you have removed have been removed inappropriately. Recently you removed 2 pictures by John Benoot. I know for a fact that those pictures are not "photoshoppped". You removed them simply because you have not seen this type for yourself I'm guessing? That doesn't mean they don't exist. Also, you've removed several factual statements and important historical events about importation to America. I have copies of original documentation from Jerry Schexnayder that documents his importation in 2001. You or others keep removing this information that is important to their history here in America. Why do you insist on doing this? Is it a personal agenda?

I would love to carry on a conversation with you on a forum or possibly in email so that we can resolve these differences and make "Serama" more complete without the constant fight like we've been doing.

Thank you, Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.70.191.1 (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the two pictures literally has a person's neck disappearing into a tree. As for a forum, Talk:Serama is the appropriate location. CMD (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are keeping a close eye on "Serama" and keep modifying and editing just as I am. I think instead of continuing the fight, we should resolve the differences. Much of what you keep undoing and claims you make are simply not true or are not accurate. We should stick to facts and try to remove feeling from this topic/conversation. I don't know who you are, but I'm most certain you know who I am. Would you like to meet on a forum other than here to discuss and iron out differences? possibly on the SCNA forum or elsewhere? I am close friends with Jerry Schexnayder whom is the largest importer of Serama to the United States. I have access directly to him as well ask Kimberly Theodore. I also have access to other top breeders knowledge such as Dianne Brewer. So, its quite possible that my knowledge of history and current events are greater than yours or can simply be more accurate. I'm willing to work with you and anyone that wants to make this wiki better, but you must stop with the reverts of things that are not true or accurate or indicate direct knowledge when I know some of what you post is simply not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsteagall (talk • contribs) 18:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have not edited Serama since 2013, when I got tired of editors unashamedly claiming blatantly photoshopped photos were not photoshopped.
• Discussions about wikipedia articles off-wiki are considered wp:canvassing and are thus not in line with wikipedia regulations.
• Personal knowledge is not important on wikipedia, as it is wp:original research. If you know so many people, then maybe you can all collectively put your heads together and find a wp:reliable source on the matter.
• I don't know where you're seeing this emotional attachment I apparently have, but I assure you it's nonexistent. If you want to make the wiki better, read the links I've posted here and try to actually apply them. CMD (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I finished everything? Can you finish your review? LittleJerry (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call the review as it was unfinished, it was a series of specific points that did go through much of the article. I'll have another look though. CMD (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you make your decision, could you sign off on source reliability too? You did look at a few sources in your review. LittleJerry (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you sign off on whether the texts accurately reflect the sources cited? You did read some sources in your review. LittleJerry (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. You don't have to do a spotcheck. They just want another source quality check. LittleJerry (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dates are important when it comes to animal recovery. We can't just say "wolves were persecuted and then recovered". Wolves started to recover after the ESA in 1973. LittleJerry (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wolves have now been removed from the ESA, which is something you reverted. If the removal doesn't fit, the entry shouldn't be included either, as it gives the misleading impression it's still on the list. CMD (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its still a true statement that they were put on the list in 1973. We will have a new president so we'll have to see how long the removal lasts. LittleJerry (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you can add that they have been removed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting my nomenclature changes. My taxonomic updates are consistent with recent derpetological studies. 2600:100F:B06E:BA34:FE0:380B:6BF8:11EB (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would you be able to do a source spot check for the turtle peer review? Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not sure I have time, but will do it if I can. CMD (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]