User talk:Animalparty/Archive 2

Moving Gray's Anatomy image galleries to...?
Hi ,

I am planning to propose the suite of Gray's Anatomy gallery articles for deletion, like this one was: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of images in Gray's Anatomy: XII. Surface anatomy and Surface Markings. You stated here:

I was wondering... should I port these to Wikibooks or is the fact that the images are already in the Commons category commons:Category:Gray's Anatomy plates sufficient in your mind? Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't actually used Wikibooks or Wikiversity, so I'm afraid I can't be of much help. All the plates are currently in one gallery commons:Gray's Anatomy plates, and I think specific sub-galleries might be a better way to keep related images organized and more nicely displayed than more categories would (although both galleries and categories can co-exist). I think it would be good to discuss this on relevant Anatomy and medical WikiProjects, to get more expert opinions on where the images should go and how they should best be organized- I don't really use Gray's Anatomy as a reference and don't know how much Wiki-history there is to these lists (many of which don't have talk pages, and may have stayed largely under the radar for many years).
 * Proposed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of images in Gray's Anatomy: I. Embryology (2nd nomination)

Gay Comix
Hi AnimalParty, thanks for your input about the Gay Comix article. Clearly I'm new at this. Could you explain more about what it appropriate and what is not? I added a table of contents for the issue I had in my hands (held by the Smithsonian Museum of American History). I thought the artists who contributed to this publication seemed likely to be of interest to someone.

I'm not really sure how to "verify" the contents if all I have to go on is the primary source material. This is a pretty undocumented part of history, which is why I thought it might be important to document it. Actually, I did find ONE of the artists in the Comic Book Database, mentioning his work in Gay Comix. (T.O. Sylvester).

I suppose I could have uploaded a picture of the first panel of each comic strip, showing the person's name and title of the strip. Would that have been acceptable verification?

Thanks for any insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gybowman (talk • contribs) 13:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * welcome to Wikipedia! Don't get discouraged, new contributors often get a hang of the most important editing guidelines pretty fast. I would recommend taking a step back from the issue in your hands and looking for secondary sources about the issue, the series, and/or the contributors. Primary sources (such as individual comics or other source material) may be used judiciously, but care should be taken not to unduly infer or analyze such works, as explained in Primary sources policy. From the simple fact a particular issue is in the Smithsonian, we can't for instance assume that that issue is especially noteworthy out of the series' 18 year history, and deserving of extensive coverage alone in the Gay Comix article unless secondary sources explicitly say so (it could have been arbitrarily selected, the only one found at the time, etc.). That would lend undue weight to the issue. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia foremost, not a directory or accumulation of all existing information, even if verifiable: see Indiscriminate info and other examples of What Wikipedia is not. Note we also can't arbitrarily include copyrighted images (such as first panels of each strip), as that would likely violate the Non-free media criteria (see for instance File:GayComix01.jpg), unless those particular strips have received extensive third party coverage. Regarding illustrators, mere inclusion of an artist in a database or directory does not establish notability, as further explained in Notability guidelines for people. We need significant, reliable, third party coverage of a person's life or work to warrant an encyclopedia article.


 * While there are many guidelines and policies, the most important are the three core content policies:
 * Verifiability - articles should be predominantly sourced with reliable, secondary sources.
 * Neutrality - article content should be unbiased and balanced, proportional to the range of published viewpoints and due weight
 * No original research - no original ideas, interpretations, or research that hasn't already been published in reliable sources.
 * And important for living persons we have Biographies of living people.
 * I hope this helps! --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
--Earthh (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Millicent Sowerby
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Crane (1843–1903)‎‎
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for John George Sowerby
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Henry Hetherington Emmerson
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Jeremy McMullen DYK
I think all this is waiting for now is the selection of one of the hooks and a tick (assuming you are happy with the article). Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Louis George Carpenter
Hello,

You tagged the article Louis George Carpenter and I did a basic rewrite. I was a bit rushed, but a little more properly wikified. Any help appreciated. I will try to do more later. Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Desert Cottontail eating mechanics source tag
I will do my best to cite references to that section. However, I want you to know that I have been feeding over 50 cottontails twice a day for 15 years here on my Ranch. I have a cottontail refuge here. I am the "go to guy" here when a cottontail is injured, or questions need to be answered by others with the same love as I have for these animals. I observe every aspect of their life from birth to death, and everything in between. Every single word in that eating mechanics section is FACT. 90% of the photos taken in that article were taken by me. I know cottontails better than I know myself. - Pocketthis (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Robert C. Stebbins
Materialscientist (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Microlophus albemarlensis
Materialscientist (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph Richard Slevin
Gatoclass (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Richard M. Eakin
Gatoclass (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Pholidotus africanus
A tag has been placed on Pholidotus africanus, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo, or other unlikely search term.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Compassionate727 (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Ghazallghochani
Check the edit history at Sockpuppet investigations/Ghazallghochani. You beat me to that sucker by seconds! Thanks for filing the report (even if it means I wasted my time filing mine). ~ RobTalk 20:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that :), it was actually my first SPI report. Let's keep an eye on this user and be on the look out for pop-ups on similar articles. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that you use Twinkle. You can also file SPI reports by doing TW --> ARV --> Change report type to "Sockpuppeteer" or "Sockpuppet", if you didn't already know that. ~ RobTalk 21:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that info!!! --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Huang Jian (sculptor)
I removed your speedy tag and moved the article to Draft instead. It seemed likely that a Director of an academic institution is likely to be notable if the editor is given some more time. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 10:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. At the time of nomination the article made no mention of directorship, only stating birth year. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Dirks
Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hierococcyx_fugax_at_Bukit_Timah,_Singapore.jpg
Hi, Are you sure that this is Hierococcyx nisicolor? This picture belongs to Hierococcyx fugax in Wiki Commons still now. It seems to me that Singapur is part of range of Hierococcyx fugax and september is too early for migration isn't it?. Hunu (talk) 07:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what bird that is, or what it's behavior might be. Sorry. --Animalparty! (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I found that User:MPF made this redirection. I will ask him. Hunu (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Aphonopelma hollyi
Hello,

Your review of the above is complete and ready to be scheduled for its Main Page appearance. Congratulations!

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Harrison Montgomery, Jr.
— Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hampton Sides & Related
Hi Animalparty! Thank you for pointing me in the right direction! As I am fairly new to this, I greatly appreciate you telling me what I am doing wrong. As far as COI is concerned, I do work closely with the Author and and familiar with his material, but I am in the process of removing anything that may seem too praiseworthy or flattering, per your recommendation. If you have any other ideas as to what can improve the pages I have contributed to, please let me know and I will be more than happy to oblige! Look forward to hearing back from you. Cheers! --Artfuldodger06 (talk) 5:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. It's good you are trying to achieve more a neutral tone (one of the core policies is Neutrality), but your closeness to the author, and your editing history, may be at odds with the aims of Wikipedia. It appears that all or most of your contributions have been on Hampton Sides and his books. This is what is called a single purpose account, and a potential conflict of interest. If you can contribute in a fair and neutral way (which may include adding negative as well as positive material), you may proceed with caution. But if you are here only to promote one person, whether affiliated, compensated, or not, you may find your contributions reverted or deleted, and may be subject to temporary or indefinite editing blocks. For more info on policy, please consult the links on your Talk page. You might also submit articles to Articles for creation to receive feedback before the article "goes live", and/or request a Peer review of existing articles. For more info on article improvement, see also the resources at WikiProject Books (and its descendent projects), such as the non-fiction book article guide. When seeking critical reviews, strive to offer a diversity of views roughly in proportion to the published record: if a book is near universally praised or panned, than it is acceptable to only include one or two dissenting views. Look beyond reviews republished or hosted on affiliated sources (the websites of publishers will of course only include praise). If a book gets mixed reviews, strive to summarize the different views, good and bad, without giving undue weight to any particular opinion. I don't work on literary articles very often, so you might get better answers at the talk pages of relevant projects.
 * Tangentially, did you intend for the OTRS pending template to go on File:Hampton Sides.jpg? That template belongs on the file page, not the article. Additionally, I'd be very surprised if File:Americana Cover Image.jpg was really released into public domain by the publisher: most book covers or other copyrighted media must satisfy Non-free content criteria (see for instance File:In the Kingdom of Ice (Cover).jpg); that an image is found online is by no means the same as public domain (which means anyone can use the image for commercial use without permission of the owner). Please don't hesitate to ask any questions. All the best, --Animalparty! (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely understandable! The last thing I wanted to do was cause any problems. For now, I will concentrate on editing and presenting what I have already created in a more neutral tone. In the future, for any new page I create, I will definitely utilize Articles for creation as well as Peer Review!
 * In response to File:Americana Cover Image.jpg, I think you are right, and it is not released into public domain. I have sent my letter of permission from the publisher to Wikipedia Permissions allowing the use of book cover images pertaining to works by Hampton Sides, but I must've (probably definitely) selected the incorrect licensing option when uploading the file. Is there a way for me to delete the file and start over again, this time making sure I select the correct licensing? If not, is it acceptable to re-upload the file if it is deleted by admin, but this time with correct licensing? Thanks again for all your help! Cheers! --Artfuldodger06 (talk) 8:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't necessarily need to re-upload anything, you can just edit the file page to swap the PD-author template with a Non-free use rationale or similar template (e.g. Non-free use rationale book cover). Re-uploading would only be needed if the original non-free content was a high resolution version (see WP:NFCCP): small, low resolution versions are generally used (see other book articles for conventional usage and documentation of non-free media). --Animalparty! (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: Question on Universal Magazine
Should the name of the Wikipedia article "The Universal Magazine (1900 monthly)" be changed to The Universal Magazine? There is a famous magazine started in 1747 with the title The Universal Magazine of Knowledge and Pleasure and changed to the title The Universal Magazine, New Series for the years 1804–1814. http://www.worldcat.org/title/universal-magazine-of-knowledge-and-pleasure/oclc/606309189 http://www.worldcat.org/title/american-universal-magazine/oclc/50924105

Phantasmical frogs (which is which?)
Hi. I saw you had recently edited Anthony's poison arrow frog aka Epipedobates anthonyi (Noble, 1921). I hope you can point the below confusion in the direction of someone who can resolve which tasty frog is which.

A recent featured picture was for Phantasmal poison frog aka Dendrobates tricolor (Boulenger, 1899). Wandering around from there I came across article Epibatidine which happily said that "is secreted by the frog species Epipedobates anthonyi (also known as Epipedobates tricolor)." That article's See Also linked to Phantasmidine which happily said "from the Ecuadorian poisonous frog Anthony's poison arrow frog (Epipeptobates Anthonyi)..." and ref's external article Phantasmidine: an Epibatidine Congener from the Ecuadorian Poison Frog Epipedobates anthonyi which says both "isolated and characterized from the frog Epipedobates anthonyi (formerly Epipedobates tricolor, Boulenger, 1899)." and "named this compound phantasmidine after the trivial name for Epipedobates anthonyi, the “phantasmal poison frog”". Yet another ref says for tricolor "Especies similares: Epipedobates anthonyi,..."

So if I have this right:
 * Epipedobates anthonyi is Anthony's poison arrow frog at WP
 * Epipedobates tricolor is Phantasmal poison frog at WP
 * Epipedobates anthonyi (also known as Epipedobates tricolor) from WP article Phantasmidine
 * Epipedobates anthonyi is (formerly) Epipedobates tricolor from ref
 * Epipedobates anthonyi is the “phantasmal poison frog” from ref
 * Epipedobates anthonyi is similar to Epipedobates tricolor but different, from another ref

At this point I just look at the pictures and think these are not the same.

Epibatidine is...
 * is a toxin derived from the skin of the equadorian poison tree frog, Epipedobates Tricolor
 * the toxins found in the skin of another frog--this one in Ecuador--that scientists call Epipedobates tricolor.
 * isolated a poison from the skin of a species of Ecuadorean frog, Epibpedobates tricolor. NYT
 * isolated from the  skin  of  the  Equadorian  poison-arrow  frog Epipedobates tricolor
 * The one toxin that distinguishes the Epipedobates tricolor from other frogs in this family is epibatidine.
 * and its  toxic ... species Epipedobates tricolor ... The latter species is the natural source of epibatidine

Hmm, my latest theory is... tricolor and anthonyi are different, no article should say 'also' or 'formerly', and Epibatidine should only mention tricolor. Can you think of anybody who's an expert on these pretty frogs? Shenme (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Late thanks
Thanks for your comments - cannot find other info anywhere! cheers--Iztwoz (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

thank you!
thank you! i hope i addressed your comments. I am a new user and it will take some time to learn :)
 * No problem :) --Animalparty! (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I signed :) --Doinacaj (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Unicorn (spider)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Unicorn (spider) 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) 07:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Cleaning Max Valentin
You made some remarks on the Max Valentin page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Valentin. To clean the section, the links, and to improve links. Information about Max Valentin are hard to get. Most of his work was before 2000, and information somewhat disappeared now (it was temporary games). Phil d'Euck was his co-worker, and Monglane knew him too.

Did the article improve?
 * If Max Valentin is the pseudonym of Régis Hauser, then there should be only one article (see WP:MERGE for instructions on merging, or I can do it if you wish). Note also that biographical articles are categorized by the subject (e.g. a biography would be categorized in Category:People from London or Category:American game designers, not tangentially related aspects (a writer is not a book, so should not be categorized in Category:Puzzle books). See also Reliable sources, which explains which types of sources to use and avoid, as well as Notability, which describes the criteria for an article to remain on Wikipedia. Lastly, please sign all of your comments by typing four tildes ( ~ ), so it is apparent who wrote what, and when. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the changes, the articles are indeed better. For the sources, I know that the reliability is moderate, but as I said, Regis Hauser maintained secrecy all his life. So journalists respected his willl and never published that much about him. The few information that stay are the one from his friends. The information about the hunts disappeared too because his hunts, mostly done before 2000, were temporary quests. Finally, I'll say that the best sources would have been Max Valentin himself, but his data, hosted by maxvalentin.com aren't online anymore (I can understand why). Thanks a lot for your guidance and your attention. --HyperionMaxis (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Wendiceratops
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Wendy Sloboda
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Aphonopelma hollyi
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

A page Joseph Marshall (traveller) you have reviewed
For now I have no any secondary works about the subject on the English language and so I can't add them to the article. All secondary works about the subject I have are on not English language. I hope some English native speaker will improve the article and will add nessessery secondary works. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * note that Non-English sources are allowed- see WP:NONENG. Sources that describe the subject's work (e.g. book reviews) are also acceptable should biographical details be wanting. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

List of ant genera
Hello, I have been working on the List of ant genera (alphabetical) in my sandbox so the list can be substantially improved and up to date, and I was wondering if you are able to give a review or give your opinion on it once I have finished it and add it into the list? If you wish to have a look now, click here. It's not done yet, but it's getting there. Once it's all done I'll let you know if you would like to give a comment or two. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's looking really good. I'm too tired to offer nitty gritty now, but I like what I see. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, just feel free to make any comments whenever you wish to. I believe it may have FL potential in the future once it's done, and it would be nice to see an insect-related featured list for once. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for William H. Behle
— Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Aphonopelma behlei
— Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

William H. Behle
That's...odd. I could have sworn when I looked at the article this morning there was a reference to multiple books - like about twenty published. I don't know where I got that, but that was my rationale for the categories in question.

To your point: I don't tend to add the "writer" categories to just any scientist who has published a couple of books. I look for evidence of more - ten or twenty. That, to me, indicates someone who spent substantial time as a writer, even within a rather narrow field. Which is my usual justification. I can't figure out how I went off the rails this morning, but am inclined to put it down to being bleary-eyed and having just gotten out of bed. Sorry about that. And my usual caveat: if you disagree, please feel free to revert. I hardly think most of my categorizations are set in stone. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining your justification/thought process. You're certainly an established, and prolific wikipedian. All the best, and carry on! --Animalparty! (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Any time. I do have my reasons, silent and inscrutable though I may be. :-)


 * Keep up the good work, and happy editing! -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Aveparvovirus Review
I agree with your review of this specific page. However, I've edited over 300 virus genus, family, and subfamily pages (added almost 200 red-linked pages). One of my main goals was to preserve a similar format across all virus taxon pages. In genera with several hundred species, the collapsed taxonomy makes a lot of sense. In families with many genera, the table view helps pull out differences among these genera. I don't think it hurts to have a quick-view format (rather than prose), especially for visitors who just want to know if a certain virus is enveloped, or if a family is lysogenic. Bervin61 (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see the use of tables in that sense, but I'm not a fan of the hidden taxonomy cascade. I'm not involved with Virus articles, but figured the less clicks a reader needs to find information, the better. Morbillivirus requires 4 clicks to discover the six species in the genus, when they could simply be displayed in a list and/or the taxobox. The Taxonomy hierarchy in Aveparvovirus is especially unfruitful, as after 4 clicks the reader learns the same info they read in the lead. I agree that with very large genera a list of species can be unwieldy, but if simply displayed allows instant perusal (see Armadillidium or for a more speciose example, List of Culex species). Preserving a similar format across pages should be secondary to whether that format improves the encyclopedia. I don't know how active WikiProject Viruses is currently, and I'm sure you have the best intentions, but it might be prudent to solicit views and consensus from WP Viruses or other projects on how to best present information and standardize articles before continuing with large scale implementation. All the best, --Animalparty! (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You make a good point. I've made the list expanded as a default. I think it's a reasonable compromise, and perhaps that's what I should do across all such pages, unless the number of taxa is beyond some threshold (10 or so). Please check it out if you have time. Wikiproject Viruses isn't very active currently; the opinions of a few end up dictating the content and format of a lot of pages. Thanks Bervin61 (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Cymbopetalum mayanum
Hi. I got the information on the birds that eat the fruit from a wiki search. I hadn't copied the sources from each page yet. Nessie (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Eggshrooms
Thanks again for the feedback on that. About making that new post: Consider in the future keeping one, but making a post at the other page asking for feeback with only a link to the original post. This helps centralize the discussion. Just a thought. Best wishes and thanks again. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited R. J. G. Savage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Humanist. 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) 11:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for R. J. G. Savage
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Much thanks for tweaking the quote in Helicoprionidae.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem! All the best, --Animalparty! (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * salute*--Mr Fink (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Re:A page your created....
Hello, Animalparty thanks for this Special:Diff/677827812, I will heed your advice. Fell free to leave a message if I make another mistakes. Thanks, happy editing!&mdash;Hidayatsrf (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ptolemaia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Specific epithet. 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, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like your opinion on a matter
I have decided to promote the articles Weaver ant and its two extant species to FA status to form an FA topic in the future, but what concerns me is the possible opposition due to the 13 extinct species. If I recall, there is almost zero sources (other than the source that describes the species) that would guarantee it as a start-class article and not enough text for all of them to be standalone articles, so I feel all of them should be redirected to the main genus article and discussed there instead. I am sure you would have a very similar opinion on this, as we have discussed this in the past with other extinct taxa. However, I feel like I should get the opinions of some editors such as yourself first anyway. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While I haven't done an in-depth literature search, a cursory search does seem to suggest that the fossil species are more often alluded to without much discussion. I could see two options: one would be to describe them all in a section of Weaver ant if it seems like it would fit without being too long. The other option would be create a composite article on Fossil Oecophylla species, similar to List of Psittacosaurus species. Thus the genus article provides centralized context on known behavior and distribution, while the fossil article (or section) could focus on anatomy, taxonomy, etc, as there is probably not much unique biology known for the extinct species. Good luck! --Animalparty! (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That works, a nice section on its fossil record would benefit the article, along with a table listing the species. Thank you for the suggestions, I'll keep them in mind. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for edits and input
Thank you! Connorlong90 (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Chichiriviche page
answer me why you removed the festivities?, it was good translated--Vvven (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Peterson (psychologist)
Thanks for adding a wikilink to your article about the fascinating 1911 Brigham Young University modernism controversy. Btw, are you able to find a reference to prove that he was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? Any references about his wife and children? Maybe I could take a look on newspapers.com...Zigzig20s (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest, and for expanding the Joseph Peterson article. I hope to one day expand the 1911 article and associated biographies to more fully explore the different angles and ramifications. I haven't done much research on the Peterson brothers, having stumbled upon the 1911 controversy by accident when developing an article on Ralph Vary Chamberlin, and haven't found many specifics, but the four professors are often collectively referred to as Mormons, even if sometimes indirectly or in broad strokes: "All four were active Latter-day Saints and enthusiastic to be teaching at a Church school". "Although other Latter-day Saints before the Chamberlins and Petersons had advocated evolution as God's means of creation, none had attracted so much attention." and "Brimhall embarked on an ambitious plan 'to include in [his] faculty … the best scholars of the church.'" W. H. Chamberlin was certainly a Mormon, and Ralph as well (perhaps not as devout). Henry Peterson was too: "A member of the Sunday School general board, Henry had deep and genuine Mormon commitments." From these statements, I think it can be reasonably be assumed Joseph Peterson was a Mormon, although the details of his beliefs, religious practice, and family history await further research. P.S. if you're interested, the most complete accounts of the 1911 controversy are probably Sherlock, 1979 and Bergera, 1993, and various chapters in Brigham Young University: The First One Hundred Years.  I'm awaiting a loan of Ralph Chamberlin's biography of his brother, which also covers the controversy, which will hopefully provide more details. Cheers! --Animalparty! (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you mind adding a couple of in-line references with his religion to his infobox pls?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Infobox scientist is set up for a religion field (see this and prior discussions), and in Peterson's case, I haven't found a good enough source that shows that his religion is important enough to the article or his own life to merit inclusion in an infobox, which is supposed to succinctly summarize their major scientific/academic achievements, and thus highlights different aspects than say Infobox basketball biography or the more general Infobox person. From sources thus far, his religion might warrant a passing mention in the body of the article, and perhaps categorization in Category:American Latter Day Saints but probably doesn't belong prominently displayed in an infobox. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I usually add a "personal life" section after "career" and before "death", with info about marriage, children, residence religion. You could do that. I do find it interesting that he was a Mormon teaching in Nashville then--will have to double-check when the Temple was built there....Zigzig20s (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh by all means, a good biography should contain such personal information if it's available, even if not in the infobox. I found and added a ref that mentions his parents were Dutch Mormons, and that source has more discussion on his career as well. Note There appears to be a different Joseph Peterson who studied at both BYU and University of California and became a teacher, but died in Snowflake, Arizona in 1946. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Were they converted in Utah? Or already Mormons in Denmark?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. The passage simply states "The son of Mormon immigrants from Denmark, Peterson grew up in near poverty in Utah." --Animalparty! (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Steven M Smith
Hi Animalparty,

Thanks for reviewing and commenting on the article that I'm creating. How do I verify the person? There are references attached with the description that takes us directly to the publications. Also, I can't seem to add more things into the infobox, e.g. spouse and institutions Hope to hear back from you soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eejyo (talk • contribs) 08:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * All content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. While independent secondary sources are preferred to better ensure neutrality (i.e. prevent misrepresentation or biases of omission), a faculty web page or self-published content (e.g. a personal website) by the subject may be used judiciously per WP:SPS. If reliable sources cannot be found to verify certain content, that content should be removed. Note also that reliance solely on an academic's publications (primary sources with respect to the subject), runs the risk of original research if any uncited analyses or claims are made about the work. There are a lot of rules and guidelines on Wikipedia, but most important are the 3 core content policies: Verifiability, Neutrality, and No original research, all three of which must be especially applied to the Biographies of living persons.  Lastly, regarding the infobox you may want to use Infobox scientist instead, which has more relevant fields. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Animalparty,

Thank you for responding promptly. I have added a few interviews and journal articles written up on Steve - faculty webpage is about to go live so I will attach that as well once it's up. I can also add journal articles featuring his work if that helps. Perfect, I've managed to edit the infobox - it looks much better now. How do I add image to the infobox? The command 'image' requires the name of the image file, but I don't know where this is from?

Hear back from you soon, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eejyo (talk • contribs) 01:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding those news articles. Any reliable source can be used, including lay news and popular science articles, "news & views" sections in academic journals, or even primary literature articles by other researchers responding to or contextualizing Smith's work (although again, secondary sources are preferred to provide better balance and context, and an article that is primarily sourced with Smith's articles may be seen as unbalanced or even promotional). You can add an image to infoboxes by using the format   (no "File:" prefix or thumbnail markup), assuming a file by that name exists on Wikimedia Commons with a suitable free license. Note that if you are personally or professionally connected to Smith, please also see the Conflict of interest guidelines. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Question
I noticed you filled in a reference link on Zygomaticomaxillary complex fracture, thank you! I noticed you used a program called Refill. Could you please tell me how to use this to fix Pubmed links? I have had difficulty getting PMIDs to fill and would certainly appreciate a bot that automated the process. Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think ReFill does anything with PMID numbers. By fix do you mean convert Pubmed links to proper citation format? It appears Cite pmid is deprecated, and should be replaced with Cite journal. Similarly, Cite doi is deprecated and a bot is currently converting those to Cite journal templates across Wikipedia. There is a semi-automated way of populating Cite journal fields using PMID or doi: In the Edit toolbar, clicking "Cite journal" under Cite --> Templates brings up the Cite journal fields, and entering either the doi or PMID and clicking the magnifying glass icon auto-fills the fields. There is also the external DOI Wikipedia reference generator.  Clicking the "Expand citations" in the left-hand tools bar used to add PMID if a ref had a doi, or vice versa, using Citation bot, but that bot has been disabled for some time now. There might be some other ref tools you can activate under Preferences --> Gadgets. For more on automated edits, you might look into AutoWikiBrowser. FYI: it appears you created Zygomaticomaxillary complex fracture from copying and pasting the content from Tripod fracture. This is frowned upon because it fragments the edit history of the content, and often leaves behind orphaned or redundant Talk pages (see Talk:Tripod fracture) that may contain relevant discussions and Project assessments. The correct process for moving an article to a new name is described at WP:MOVE. There is a way to manually restore edit histories at How to fix cut-and-paste moves, but it should probably be left to an administrator. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, I will read the links you posted and modify the article properly to include the edit history. Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:David Tab Rasmussen/GA1
Animalparty, nominator Maky posted on August 28 that he was withdrawing this nomination. As reviewer, it's up to you to close it. Please let me know if you need any help in doing so. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Armbrust The Homunculus 21:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Question on Wikipedia page for Rollo Beck
In the Rollo Beck article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollo_Beck under ===Galápagos Islands, Ecuador=== there is the phrase "ornithological expedition to the Galápagos Islands of the coast of Ecuador". I think perhaps "of" should be changed to "off" but even that change I find unsatisfactory. I think the phrase should be fixed but I not sure what is best. Can you advise?
 * I changed it to "off Ecuador", although I think the Galapagos Islands are probably distinct and well-known enough to warrant omission of the mainland country to which they belong politically (and linking to Ecuador would especially be of little use to readers in context). Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

American ivory-billed woodpecker
You tagged it as a "redirect with possibilities". I undid it but was subsequently undone by. My question is this: can we ever have an article about an "American ivory-billed woodpecker" when there is no such thing? It's the nominate race, so it's just the "ivory-billed woodpecker". Right? I'm opposed to having Wikipedia editors coin new names for anything. Geogene (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you're correct, but there are various and inconsistent usages of common names. The just plain "Ivory-billed woodpecker" is a common name that often refers to the species C. principalis which encompasses two subspecies, each with a more specific common name (C. principalis principalis = American Ivory-billed, C. principalis bairdii= Cuban ivory-billed), However, this usage is unfortunately not consistent among reliable, or even authoritative sources, which can cause confusion. "American ivory-billed woodpecker" is used by some reliable sources when referring to the subspecies C. principalis principalis see Ornithology in Laboratory and Field, but in other cases, the "American" is sometimes dropped, even if explicitly or implicitly referring to the non-Cuban subspecies. This source confusingly uses both "American Ivory-billed" and "Ivory-billed" when referring to C. p. principalis. For a more succinct account, Avibase lists "Ivory-billed Woodpecker" and "Northern Ivory-billed Woodpecker" as common names for C. prinicpalis:  while C. p. principalis common names include: "American Ivory-billed Woodpecker, Ivory-billed Woodpecker, Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Northern), and Northern Ivory-billed Woodpecker", and C. p. bairdii common names are: "Cuban Ivory-billed Woodpeck, Cuban Ivory-billed Woodpecker, and Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Cuban)"


 * The Wikipedia article Ivory-billed woodpecker currently doesn't do a very good job of distinguishing the scope in the article intro, and largely treats the American subspecies as synonymous with the species as a whole, with the Cuban subspecies as the "other" (geographic bias?). As there currently is not a separate article for Campephilus principalis principalis, I feel R with potential is appropriate should the species level article one day become a general overview that defers more subspecies-specific detail to an article devoted to the American subspecies, in the same vein as Cuban ivory-billed woodpecker. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the sources, and explanation. With those points in mind, I've self-reverted so that it's once again a "redirect with possibilities". Incidentally, I saw a paper that came out not that long ago that argued, based on DNA from cabinet specimens, that the bairdii was a distinct species closer to the Imperial woodpecker. No idea whether that ever got any traction, sadly I doubt there will be much more information on these birds forthcoming. Geogene (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If bairdii is elevated to full species, and off-wiki consensus supports the status (i.e. more than just one paper, as taxonomy can be messy), then I suppose C. p. principalis would become synonymous with the entire (narrower) scope of C. principalis. The relevant title guidelines are WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION - "American" may not be as as common, but might end up being more precise should taxonomic changes warrant new article shuffling. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Rolf Schweizer
Animalparty, can you please stop by this nomination at your earliest convenience to continue your review now that one of the article creators has made edits to the article in response to your most recent comments? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Robert C. Stebbins
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Robert C. Stebbins 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 Stigmatella aurantiaca -- Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Orsonwelles
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

List of mandolinists (sorted)
Thank you for patrolling List of mandolinists (sorted). You asked if there wasn't a reason that it can't be merged with the already existing list and the answer is no. I think it probably needs to be merged. When I began this list, its material came from the French Wikipedia. I didn't feel for dealing with two lists of names at the time, especially with all of the work that needs to be done putting references on names. The other issue is that the first list has/had (I need to check again) a lot of good players who don't meet the criteria I set up this list with. The list is pointless to me if anyone can learn the instrument and get on the list; that's what the mandolin category is for. I envision a list of names that bring credit to the instrument by improving its lot.

So, yes I think the lists need to be merged. I am not sure what to do at this point other than plug away. The original list is relatively static, so I am not sure if others are editing or not. Sorry about multiple edits here... It's hard to preview on my phoneJacqke (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Homo naledi protected
I know you've only edited this peripherally but just to let you know that I've protected this page for 12 hours and any help you could give on reaching a consensus before full protection runs out would be very much appreciated. I'm sure everyone can come to an agreement. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

About your comments on Pseudorhabdosynochus justinella
Thanks for the comments. I am trying to find a simple way to make as many pages in Wikipedia as there are species described in the big paper by Kritsky et al. All species are described and illustrated, and all is open access. This page is simply the third in a long series to come. Please look also at Pseudorhabdosynochus americanus and Pseudorhabdosynochus yucatanensis. I have tried to use a mixture of general comments (written in common language) and details (copied and pasted from the original text). If this does not work, please explain. Jeanloujustine (talk) 06:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would recommend not copying verbatim, or even close paraphrasing, of the species diagnoses or descriptions (open access or not), which are intended for specialists. The likelihood is small that any reader of Wikipedia will ever encounter the organisms, let alone identify to species, and excessive detail may impede a reader's comprehension of the "big picture": key traits like general description, size, host, life cycle, etc. I'd stress generalities over exact details—a gestalt view—perhaps only noting major features or details where they differ from other species, but without assuming the reader knows much or anything about the other species. Additionally, the small text style is hard to read, and goes against WP:FONTSIZE Style guidelines. I hope this helps! --Animalparty! (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Eucteniza
It seems to me that Eucteniza is an excellent GA candidate, and I'm sorry to see that no-one has picked up the review. I don't usually review non-plant articles, but if no-one else reviews it soon, I'll consider doing this one.

I've been doing some spider editing lately – spiders are an interest of mine, but definitely not an area of expertise. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be anyone active at WikiProject Spiders at present. So I hope you may be able to answer a couple of questions I have:
 * Is the order of sections at Eucteniza based on a template for this kind of species article? (It's substantially different from the order I'm used to for plant articles.)
 * The "standard" for spider articles seems to be to have a list of species at the genus article, when there aren't too many, but also to repeat this list at a complete listing of the family. Where there are a lot of species in a genus, then there's only a list at the family list. Zygiella and List of Araneidae species: N–Z are examples of the first kind, Araneus and List of Araneidae_species: A are examples of the second kind. This seems odd to me, and especially for cases like Zygiella, causes problems when the genus is revised, because there are two places where the species list needs updating. (If the family is revised, there are also two articles that need updating, since the genera are listed at the family article and the "List of Xidae species" article.) When a new family is created, like Trachelidae, then it's necessary to create List of Trachelidae species as well as genus articles. Is this a peculiarity of spider articles, or is it common with other animal groups?

Any comments you have on the spider editing I've been doing lately would be very, very welcome! Peter coxhead (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, Animalparty -

Thanks for your edits on the page for Partamona peckolti that I created. Don't worry, I will be adding much more prose over the next few days :) Thanks again! Mebennett49 (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Mebennett49

DYK for Angus M. Woodbury
Gatoclass (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Unicorn (spider)
The article Unicorn (spider) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Unicorn (spider) 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) 10:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Holacanthus africanus
Thank you for reviewing my newly created article (above). I deleted the section flagged as unreferenced, as it does fall under the terms of original research. All my best, Pufferfyshe (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Follow-up: your tip (most recent change to my personal talk page) is much appreciated. If I may, I would draw your kind attention to another creation of mine: Chaetodon larvatus. Best wishes, Pufferfyshe (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Monotypic taxa
I am not at all sure that what you have done is sensible. The taxonomy in this phylum is nightmarishly complex with different multiple differing opinions on the taxonomy. A recent proposal has been made to revise the gregarine taxonomy entirely has been made - see Gregarinasina. This is not the only proposal fr this taxon's revision. Whether or not a taxon remains monotypic or even continues in existence is an open question givn the amount of work being done on classification with the genomes. Given this state of flux it is IMHO a lot easier to leave the page alone in case the taxon has multiple other subtaxa added to it. What might be sensible for other more stable taxa may prove very messy for this one. There are not to many other editors working on this phylum. Virion123 (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in. I admit I am not familiar with modern advances in apicomplexans. However, we as editors are tasked with summarizing and distilling sometimes complex and contradictory classifications to be accessible for the lay reader, and neutral with respect to the existing body of relevant literature. In the case of Porosporicae and Porosporidae the content as written was nearly identical, thus causing the user to navigate two articles to get the same redundant information. Ditto for Fusionicae and Fusionidae. However I am not familiar with the history of these taxa: if they have long been widely considered monotypic, it would be better to treat them as such and discuss new ideas within a single article. If they were only recently reclassified as monotypic, then perhaps further discussion and restructuring of other articles should occur. When there are differing taxonomic opinions, especially in primary literature (e.g. a recent classification, revision or phylogeny that has yet to gain standing), it is often preferable to choose the classification that currently has the widest consensus among secondary and tertiary sources, as required for policies of neutrality (especially due weight), and discuss dissenting or alternative views within one article. If two opposing views are roughly equal in prominence, we as Wikipedians may have to arbitrarily choose one and explain. Classification schemes of encyclopedic articles should be somewhat resistant to changes based on bleeding edge research: otherwise we risk unduly representing (or even promoting) ideas before they've been widely accepted, or giving the impression of a false balance (I know from experience it's easy to fall into the trap of recentism). In both of these monotypic taxa articles I only see primary sources older than 1970 listed, thus it is hard to gauge consensus of, or even verify, current classification schemes. From your edit history I am sure you have some familiarity with these organisms, and I'm happy to leave the job of assessing due weight to you and others more specialized than myself. The ideal result is a series of articles that are mutually consistent, give well-balanced information with context, have minimal redundancy or duplication, and are easy to navigate and read. All the best! --Animalparty! (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank for the above. The primary references were chosen as it is conventional to give the original describers of a taxon the credit. The last major revision of this phylum was by Levine in 1970. Since then every revision has been of smaller taxa. Cavilier-Smith has been working on the major divisions of the protozoa for several decades and he is probably the world authority on these. He is not always right and has corrected himself on several occasions.
 * Concerning recentism - this is problematic in this area. DNA sequencing and analysis has transformed taxonomy. This phylum aside from some favoured taxa has been seriously neglected and only now undergoing revision. The problem is that several genera that were regarded as monotypic turn out not to be and species that were in different taxa have been moved to other taxa. For example for decades Cryptosporium was regarded as a coccidian. DNA says that it is not. This has since been confirmed on additional multiple studies. It appears to be a basal gregarine. The genus Haemosporia is placed in the coccida but DNA suggests that it belongs with Plasmodium. There is a genus in the family Plasmodium that infects leeches. It has been isolated only on one occasion and probably does not belong to that family at all. In fact it may be a parasite from another animal that the leech ingested. This is a problem that has been shown to occur with Xenoturblia when DNA studies suggested that this organism belong to one phylum while others suggested it belongs to another. The recognition that the PCR was amplifing ingested prey DNA clarified that story. I could continue but I hope you get the picture. These taxa are a mess and subject to wrenching revisions.
 * Concerning your advice. These suggestions are rather anodyne and fail to address the compexity of the problem. My own thinking on the matter is because these taxa are subject to sporadic and unexpected revision - see that suggested one in the Gregarines - I prefer to future proof the taxonomy as far as I can. If you think restructuring of the pages should occur, please feel free to contribute because it is a fairly lonely place working on the taxonomy here.Virion123 (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Boulenger & Boulenger.
Hello, Animal Party! Thanks for writing the article on Edward George Boulenger. Also, I do believe you are correct that "E.G." is the correct taxon author (binomial authority) for Chalcides armitagei and not his father George Albert Boulenger. Even though I've been using Boulenger's Catalogues of the ... in the British Museum (Natural History) for over 50 years, I never knew "G.A." had a son! Keep up the good work. Regards, Lyttle-Wight (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eucteniza
The article Eucteniza you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Eucteniza for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sinocorophium, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Posterior and Basal. 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) 09:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Angus M. Woodbury
Hello, AnimalParty, Thank you for your feedback on the picture I uploaded of Angus M. Woodbury. I am the grandson of Angus and have the original picture in my possession. What is the correct way to release copyright? DJW56 (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'm actually not sure about that case. The copyright status depends on several things such as who created the image (if known), if and where and when the image was first published, and possibly the date of death of the creator. Ownership or possession of an image does not necessarily grant right to copy or re-license. The best way to find definitive answers would be to post a question at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Also, FYI there are some differences between Wikipedia and Commons: Wikipedia can host limited copyrighted material under fair use doctrine (e.g. album covers or images of deceased people for which no free equivalent exists), but such images cannot be uploaded to Commons. All the best, --Animalparty! (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

On jaguars
Thank you for the advice, I put in the reference on the tests that failed to establish that the jaguar is divided into different subspecies, but, having a look at other sources, this could be reviewed. Thanks. (Leo1pard (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC))

Your GA nomination of Richard M. Eakin
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Richard M. Eakin 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) 10:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you would like to respond to the small number of suggestions I made on the review page, I could complete this review before I go on holiday tomorrow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Marvalee Wake
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR cleanup drive
Sent of behalf of for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ida Shepard Oldroyd
Hello! Your submission of Ida Shepard Oldroyd at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mobile Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All it needs is the QPQ. Mobile Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ralph Vary Chamberlin
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ralph Vary Chamberlin 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 Sasata -- Sasata (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Mary Cynthia Dickerson
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Robert C. Stebbins
The article Robert C. Stebbins you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Robert C. Stebbins 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 Stigmatella aurantiaca -- Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ida Shepard Oldroyd
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for participating


Thank you for your participation in the Women in Science Virtual Edit-a-thon, 8 to 29 November 2015, hosted by Women in Red together with Women scientists. It was held in parallel with a meet up at the New York Academy of Sciences on 22 November. In addition to improvements, we created well over 300 new articles. Your contributions are appreciated!

Hope you will also join us for the WiR Women in Religion Virtual Edit-a-thon from 5 to 15 December.--Ipigott (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Spirochaeta thermophila
Thanks for your feedback; I will make the edits to Volumes and page numbers of the sources listed since I have all of them handy! Achau11 (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)achau11

Pediobius foveolatus
Thanks for letting me know! I have amended the section on how to use the wasp, to read more as factual statements about how the wasp is generally used in agriculture. I will remove or change the citations with my work in them (I'm looking over the rules now). Let me know if my changes are adequate, or how I can make them so. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouNottingham (talk • contribs) 21:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Odin Biron
Animalparty, there has been a reply to your review that asks whether the issues you raised have been satisfactorily addressed. Can you please stop by to continue the review? Many thanks. If you'd instead like me to find another reviewer, just let me know here and I will add the request to the nomination template. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Beverly Thomas Galloway
Hello! Your submission of Beverly Thomas Galloway at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SusunW (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
HELLO

SushiGod (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC) 

Levantino Spanish talk
Please we need with a possibly unbiased appreciation that you could help, to have a consensus or better yet, the better name seeing the two tesis or three of the name, or create a new one, we need you in the Talk:Levantino Spanish. thanks.--Vvven (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this subject is far from my area of familiarity, and so I won't be participating in the discussion. You might get more informed contributions from editors at WikiProject Languages, WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries, and/or WikiProject Spain. In my opinion, the best way to resolve this issue is less personal views on the talk page and more references to authoritative sources. It matters less what we (Wikipedians) think than what reliable sources state. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Alan Montgomery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episcopalian. 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) 09:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Demographics of San Francisco city
Good idea re the page move. I tried to do that, but could not. I think because of the existing redirect. I'm not sure how to proceed at this point. Is this something I can learn how to do myself? -- If so, can you point me to the tutorial. Or do I need an admin or someone else to take care of it? Thanks in advance. CUA 27 (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I put in a technical request for the move: see Requested moves/Technical requests. It should be uncontroversial, but there might be a little dirt as an administrator moves things around and re-establishes edit history, etc. In the future, you can probably make many moves yourself (unless there are articles or redirects with substantial history in the way), since you should be autoconfirmed with the number of page edits and duration of your account. More info is at Help:How to move a page. All the best, --Animalparty! (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for showing me how to do that, and for the helpful tutorial. In future, if I want to do something similar — i.e., I want to turn a section into a new article, but a redirect to that section already exits, what is the best way to proceed? Should I create the new article with a different name, and then put in a technical request for a move? Or is there a better way? I don't know how to delete a redirect that leads back to a section heading. CUA 27 (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Raffi
Hi. I'm trying to move Raffi (musician) to Raffi, not delete a redirect as your edit summary suggested. I'll start a discussion on Talk:Raffi (musician), though it seems like overkill. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: On images and attribution in captions.
Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I appreciate the advice and the help. However having previously had difficulties with copyright and licenses on the Wikipedia I'm now so risk adverse that I'm ensuring I comply completely with any copyright licenses and follow the advice given to ensure compliance unless advised legally otherwise. I've researched the ideal attribution and am following exactly the advice given by the Creative Commons website, the organisation that created the original licenses. As I understand it, this is the ideal attribution and is correct. I recognise that it may not be elegant but I'm confident I'm legally complying with both copyright and the CC BY 4.0 license by attributing the images this way. I'm following this advice in the caption and have improved my citation techniques in line with advice from other Wikipedia editors. Obviously I'd be prepared to adapt my attribution techniques if given legal advice of the same by either Wikipedia or Creative Commons lawyers but until then will be following the exact advice given by the Creative Commons website as regards ideal attribution. As explained, I've been bitten by copyright infringement previously on Wikipedia and refuse to put myself into that situation again. I'd also like to point out the other reason why I attribute images as I do. Please read my message on Talk:Hyphalus wisei. Thank you again for your help and advice. I do appreciate it. Ambrosia10 (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Re:Thanks for creating Aspidopleres
Hi,thanks for your note:


 * "Note that monotypic taxa should generally be discussed along with their parent, per WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA, i.e. in a genus such as this, the sole species should be a redirect".

I accordingly have created such a redirect at Aspidopleres intercalatus. Please let me know if anything more is due before a new species gets described. :D Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Margaret Reed Lewis
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Moving My Userbox/Einstein page
Thank you for moving that page so quickly! (I think it was less than 30 seconds.) I realized right after I clicked on the create page that I put it in the main space instead of making it one of my subpages. A big oops. Since there are no links to the redirect page, if you know how to delete it, please feel free to do so (I even encourage it, as it will reduce clutter). Ira Leviton (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

RE: A page you started (Paspaleae) has been reviewed!
Thanks four your comments RE Paspaleae. I've now added the year when the tribe was recognised as distinct. I've also detailed and linked the "chromosome number"; "x", the monoploid number, actually has a special meaning. Tylototriton (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Beverly Thomas Galloway
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Francoise Dussart editing
How to I delete one of the references as I now putting in external link? Adubois88 (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ralph Vary Chamberlin
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

A quick heads up
A quick heads up that I've nominated Incest in entertainment for deletion at WP:AFD, this being an article which you tagged for Notability. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Confusion over Hetrick's status
Hello Animalparty, first of all happy new year! I was a little unsure about Hetrick's current status if he's alive or not, because as of 1953 he was retired, so that would make him really old right now, so as for now I think the living people tag is not certain. Thanks!

COI and suspected IP sockpuppetry at Sairu
Hello,. I am asking for your help, because you originally identified the conflict of interest here, where Wikisaichan was editing Sairu. If you choose not to get involved with that issue any more, please just let me know and I will find other ways to pursue it.

Since your note, Wikisaichan has stopped editing but suddenly an IP editor (118.1.138.55) has taken over; I suspect it is the same person. He/she is making worse and worse edits, and refusing to engage on the talk page. Proper grammar and spelling are removed in favour of strange sentence fragments, maintenance tags are removed, dozens of references to FaceBook, blogs and unverifiable YouTube videos are added - one single statement has 25 references (all useless).

I am not used to dealing with such a recalcitrant editor, and I was hoping you could provide some suggestions. I can't warn the IP using the usual tools. I am not convinced that the article is beyond saving, so I am reluctant to go to AfD. I have almost no hair left to pull out. Are you able to offer any suggestions?--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ugh, the article is certainly atrocious cosplay-cruft, but I don't have the mental stamina to investigate the sources beyond the clearly inappropriate Facebook links. It appears likely that Wikisaichan is or is affiliated with the subject (Saichan, Sairuchan, see -chan), or at the most gracious an overly avid fan unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. IP 118.1.138.55 is apparently based in Tokyo, and both are SPAs but perhaps not yet sufficient to establish sock-puppetry. WP:COIBOARD or WP:ANI may be a last resort, but less drastic measures include notifying users at WikiProject Belgium, WikiProject Anime and manga, and WikiProject Japan, seeing if they can provide evaluate claims of notability and/or provide better, more reliable sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! That sounds like the perfect way to bring some fresh eyes to the topic.  --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Help!
Enteromorpha is a genus of algae. However on entering that word I am let to "Sea lettuce" Ulva lactuca! I suspect this is because the two genera "Ulva" and "Enteromorpha" have at times become a little confused! E. intestinalis was once referred to as Ulva intestinalis. However The genus Enteromorpha does exist! Please help me enter it.Osborne 21:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Apparently the two genera were synonymized with this 2003 paper. I don't know if this represents the current predominant view among phycologists: I know little about plant taxonomy, even less about algal taxonomy, but under the scheme used in Wikipedia Enteromorpha intestinalis = Ulva intestinalis. Undoubtedly there are sources that use different classifications; if you can find more recent, reliable, and authoritative sources (preferably books or review articles or other secondary sources that evaluate evidence or indicate a consensus view), by all means cite them. You might try posing a question at WikiProject Algae, although that project currently doesn't seem to be very active. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Plantdrew has contacted me on this matter with a reference of 2003: Hayden, Blomster, Maggs et al. 2003. (Is this the ref you noted above?) I must submit! Damn. I don't like it! Thank you for your advice. Osborne 20:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

remove a page
Hi. You recently commented the Revista mexicana de astronomia y astrofisica asking to do some links to it. I was doing it and found that it is more convenient to create a new page with slightly different name: Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica. How can the first one be removed, or point to the second one? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarObs (talk • contribs) 16:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Séralini affair
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Séralini affair. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Ralph Vary Chamberlin
I haven't commented at the link you put at WP:SPIDERS because I notice that it goes to an archive, and I'm not sure it should be discussed there. Ralph Vary Chamberlin is clearly a very good article, and I'm not sure what you could do to improve it, although I noticed that the  tags don't really follow WP:ALT and for featured articles they should. It would be nice to know exactly why he was banned from the Museum of Comparative Zoology, although Mayr is known for his combativeness – his attacks on cladistics and its followers are not especially temperate. Knowing that zoologists have been known to choose names to settle scores, I couldn't help noticing that Chamberlineptus contains "ineptus". :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I'm a bit unsure on how much detail to include in alt, so have added "see caption" if the caption contains largely the same information (I don't think facial appearance, pose, or clothing is relevant detail to include). Regarding the "ineptus", from my observations, millipede nomenclature tends to heavily follow tradition or historical precedent in suffixes: thus many polydesmidan genera end in -desmus and many spirostreptid genera end in -eptus or -streptus, and this is likely a similar suffix. But there very well may be some hidden pun or less than honorary intent! Also, I believe Peer review discussions automatically go into "archive" by default, but as long as they are not closed, discussion and comments can be made there (see for example Peer review/Stone Town/archive1). --Animalparty! (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Salt Mud Slide
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Salt Mud Slide. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:ExxonMobil
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:ExxonMobil. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Staten Island boat graveyard
Thanks for adding the image to the article. I was about to go add it to the DYK nomination, but I see you have already reviewed it. Do you think it would be appropriate to include the image in the DYK nomination, or is it too dark and too detailed to show up well in the very small version which would be used on the mainpage? --MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that image would make a good DYK image- it's dark and detailed, and doesn't have much contrast. I set the thumbnail larger than default for these reason. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I kinda thought so. But it works really well in the article, thank you! --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Climate change denial
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Climate change denial. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for David Wasawo
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Categorization of redirects from scientific names of animals
Hi, I noticed you removed a category at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aphonopelma_hentzi&redirect=no Aphonopelma hentzi]. Until recently, I mostly edited plant articles, and the norm at WP:PLANTS is to categorize scientific names into the appropriate taxonomic categories (as just one example, see [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capparis_spinosa&redirect=no]). This makes it easier for anyone who uses the category system to traverse the taxonomic hierarchy. There's also the issue of where to put for this species. "Texas brown tarantula" was not published in 1852; the specific name "hentzii" [with this spelling] was what was published (at that time in the genus Mygale) and what is attributed to Girard, 1852.

Is there any Wikipedia guidance on categorizing such redirects for animals? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The general guidelines are at Categorizing redirects, which states "Most redirects should not be placed in article categories." From that, my own rule of thumb is that if both redirect and target end up in the same category, it's largely redundant and can result in cluttered categories. I don't think any animal group has a categorization scheme as complex as plants (e.g. Category:Banksia taxa by common name and Category:Banksia taxa by scientific name. While names and taxa are semantically different, I think in most cases treating names and organisms as equivalent entities (for the sake of Wikipedia articles) facilitates browsing and categorization. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * But the guideline does permit categorizing alternative names here: Categorizing redirects. For plants, where 99% of the articles are at scientific names, it makes it more difficult to reconcile category membership with a list of species when the handful of scientific name redirects aren't listed in the category. When just 1 of 34 articles in Category:Aphonopelma is at the vernacular name it seems useful to me to add the single scientific name redirect to get a comprehensive list of Aphonopelma species with articles. If it's a 50/50 mix of vernacular and scientific names in a category, yeah, just stick to categorizing article and not redirects. Snakes go a lot further than plants in terms of complex parallel categorization schemes (see Category:Snakes by common name and Category:Snakes by taxonomic synonyms). Plantdrew (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Those are valid points, and there may not be anything wrong in fact with having common names and scientific names in the same category, similar to listing both in an index. I don't have strong opinions either way. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Treating each case on its merits, I do find compelling the argument that when just 1 of 34 articles in Category:Aphonopelma is at the vernacular name it seems useful to me to add the single scientific name redirect to get a comprehensive list of Aphonopelma species with articles. So I think the redirect should be categorized. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Conventions
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Conventions. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yang et al, 2014 Kalligrammatidae images
Hi Animalparty, I just completed an article for Kalligrammatidae and was wondering if you have access to more high definition images from Mesozoic lacewings from China provide phylogenetic insight into evolution of the Kalligrammatidae (Neuroptera)., Yang et al, 2014? I noticed you uploaded two of them to commons and would like to add more for the genera when they are created. Let me know! Thanks. -- Kev min  § 20:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice work. There are many more images of different species from that paper (here), but it appears all are now at a reduced resolution. A more detailed web search may uncover original or higher resolution versions, and in the past I've also had success from downloading pdfs of papers and taking enlarged screen shots if the images are of sufficient quality. Feel free to upload any to Commons, assuming they haven't been previously published in non CC journals. Note, I believe .jpg is the preferred format for photographic images, and .png for line illustrations, per Commons:File types. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried the current formats for the paper and sadly both the html and pdf version only have the reduced images. Too bad, I guess I will have to go with the full figure images I was able to get and not crop to the specific fossils as I try to do with cc images (eg Labandeira et al 2016).-- Kev  min  § 20:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)