User talk:Chiswick Chap/TalkArchive2019

ISBN numbers, Squid
Do you consider the edits made by User:Srich32977 to the article Desert are helpful or unhelpful? They are concerned with reformatting ISBN numbers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * - good to hear from you! I've seen similar edits elsewhere. On the whole I consider parameter formatting edits to already-correct strings of numbers not specially necessary. If Wikipedia has decided to standardise on just one dash, like 978-1234567890 as Amazon has it, then fine. If it's one editor inventing policy then perhaps not so good. Gnomes are constantly inventing new things to busy themselves with; at least this one is fairly harmless. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I will leave it be. I have enjoyed collaborating with you in the past but have recently got bogged down in New Page Patrolling, an essential but never-ending task. Do you fancy having a go at Squid for GA? Maybe, as mentioned above, would like to join in? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, why not? It's a great subject. Ceranthor, we'd love you to join us. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would love to join the effort - I've taken the past few weeks off writing content, so getting my hands wet (pun intended) with something fresh and new will be exciting. I'd especially love to write about squid microbiota; Ed Yong's writings like this have gotten me hooked on squids!  ceran  thor 13:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's great! Welcome on board. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Gosh the cladogram is complicated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that was a job-and-a-half. Hope everyone likes it! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm delighted to leave it to you, then., when collaborating on these articles, I tend to work on the description / anatomy part of the article and CC works on the human-related aspects, the taxonomy and evolution, so join in where you like. I think there should be a behaviour or ecology section, which is currently lacking. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the whole intelligent behaviour, ecology, communication thing is missing at the moment, it should be a "juicy" section indeed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow I am scheduled to have an operation for which I have been 18 months on the waiting list. I'm not sure how long I will be out of action as a result, but hope to get back to Squid and its behaviour before too long. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hope it all goes well and speak to you soon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)




 * Chiswick and Cwmhiraeth, checking in about this. Finished my work with Sand Mountain Volcanic Field, so I'm ready to work on the squid-vibrio symbiosis now! Where do you two think makes the most sense to nest microbiology within the article - in the development section?  ceran  thor 14:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good to hear that. Maybe a new subsection in Description? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Added a teensy bit to camouflage, as well as a paragraph for Development. Might add a bit more to development.  ceran  thor 17:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, I wrote a whole chunk on the HBS in Counter-illumination, including a hand-drawn diagram of its eye-like light-producing organ! We could actually include all or part of that here: maybe the image and a bit of the text to accompany it? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think so. Where do you think it belongs - in description somewhere, or under development?  ceran  thor 18:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Description, I'd think. It's obviously close to Camouflage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Added. Let me know what you think. I kept a lot of your original phrasing, but I would be happy to copyedit/rewrite in my own words.  ceran  thor 14:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you think the "Camouflage" and "Defence" sections are in the best place, or should they go in the "Behaviour" section? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think they could well be moved to Behaviour, the chapter headings are as usual in need of some attention. Camouflage in squid is strongly associated with active behaviour, but of course it also has an anatomical and physiological basis. Since all "systems" of an organism are inter-related and overlapping, my preference is just to have a broad chapter on Biology (as opposed to Human uses, etc), but I'll go along with anything sensible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't done anything about this and was thinking we might nominate the article at GA and reorganise the sections if required to do so by the reviewer. More importantly though, the first sentence is dicey because WoRMS does not recognise "Teuthida" any longer. Wouldn't it be nice and straightforward if taxonomy was unchanging. It is very difficult for Wikipedia to keep up. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to go along with that. I think it would be worth attempting to reorganise so you feel as comfortable as possible, and obviously we must do something about the 'Teuthida' bit: I've wikilinked Decapodiformes instead, which I'd have thought does the trick. Then let's nominate right away. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , actually, I think we should just nominate it as you suggest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It has got off to a quick start, but I don't plan to get onto it until tomorrow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Vital articles
Lately I've been working on the Science portion of WP:VA3. Not following anyone. Sadly my ill-informed critics think if I make some mistakes they should revert everything, and re-introduce errors which I have corrected. I am seeking to be more discreet with my corrections. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Basically, if you go around annoying those people then they'll unfortunately respond irrationally, so best to avoid going there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Sissinghurst Castle Garden
Hi Chiswick Chap - I hope this finds you well. I've been working up Sissinghurst as a collaboration, and we're now at FAC, here, Featured article candidates/Sissinghurst Castle Garden/archive1. We'd really appreciate your thoughts on the state of the article, should you have the time. KJP1 (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Did you mean to comment out an entire History section of Aristotle?

 * See 29 March 2018‎ Chiswick Chap (with?) ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes. You will see that this preceded the successful GA review (I was the nominator), and that the relationship with Plato is discussed in the article, i.e. the short section commented out is in fact only an aspect of the historical context, so "entire History section" makes it sound far bigger than it is. I am not entirely opposed to people working up a little more on the context, but the article has the main points well covered, and I'd point out that the subject of the article is the man not the whole of ancient Greek philosophy. To be clear, the commented-out material is not satisfactory for the article as it stands. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Squid
Congratulations to you and Cwmhiraeth! Glad I could be of some help.  ceran  thor 13:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, and absolutely. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Endosymbiont
Hello Chiswick chap - can you check my edit on page changing endosymbiont to symbiont - if it stands whole section needs removal or heavy editing - or reverting if it doesn't. Many thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I suspect it needs reverting. The bacteria are indeed endosymbionts of Eukaryotes such as the diatom Hemiaulus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chiswick chap - sometimes you cannot see the wood for the trees. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Autoevolutionism
Hi I noticed you worked on the orthogenesis article. I created an article for Evolution Without Selection, it is a form of orthogenesis called autoevolutionism, can you add to the orthogenesis table? Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * : Done that. Can't work out if LdF is a hidden vitalist: very likely. The citations should really use templates. The article needs copy-editing. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Wish
Hello. Help improve for article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. Arina56 (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. This is outside my area of expertise, but it is clear that you need to use better (more reliable) sources, such as from national newspapers or international magazines (which themselves are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about them). Good luck! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

At a cemetery near you?
I recently created James_Alexander_Gammie and just "noticed" the burial location. Perhaps you live nearby... would be nice to see the tombstone and inscription. Shyamal (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Well, I can give it a go. The "Old Chiswick Cemetery" is St Nicholas's Churchyard down near the river so I can look and see (it's quite large!). https://www.findagrave.com/cemetery/638900/memorial-search?firstName=James+Alexander&lastName=Gammie returns "no memorial" but perhaps they haven't mapped all the ordinary gravestones (focusing on the more impressive monuments, perhaps). Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * : Well, I went to have a look; and I couldn't find the tombstone. There are three factors making finding it difficult: 1) as noted, the location is not in the findagrave database, possibly because 2) like many of the graves here, the inscription is missing; 3) the 1924 graves, several of which I found, are scattered among older graves so there isn't a completely regular ordering by date. I took a couple of photos which I can send if you want to email me. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for looking, I am aware how tricky these things can be. Perhaps a local historian would know. Shyamal (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

not obvious spelling: coloration
Hey Chis'ick, re: this I was questioned on the spelling of this (as Australian English [shrug]), coloration [tick symbol], and conferred with  that I was 'not wrong' (Fowler, et al.) [because this is totally editorial instinct that makes me use it]. There is a page that gives universal english—and I nominated this spelling for inclusion—but can not remember where that is!? Please excuse the excessive punctuation, hope you are well, cygnis insignis 15:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The British, and I believe the Americans, Canadians, Indians, Australians, and New Zealanders all use "coloration", i.e. both BE and AE, as the traditional spelling on a par with "decoration" and many others. The English book title Adaptive Coloration in Animals gives a clue also. If there are lists and rules someplace, great, but I have no idea where. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Australians? only according to the national version of the OED. And the national dictionary, Macquarie. I had viewed this from a number of angles, but the example of 'decoration' had not occurred to me. cygnis insignis 16:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the whole idea of a definitive spelling in English is risible, really: what's right is what people do. This unfortunately means that once the illiterati have trampled a path through the flowerbed, contracting "adaptation" to "adaption", the new word is correct and we just have to gnash our teeth and like it. It helps to recall that Shakespeare hardly spelt his own name the same way twice... Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Without being particularly au fait with many languages, I view English as structurally plastic, immune to small coding errors and resilient to any mangling of syntax. We are fortunate to have this means of communication :–) cygnis insignis 17:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and we're all allowed to innovate, something frowned upon in French and German, for instance, though both contain heaps of English words. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol, but there should more allowance for unhyphenated compounds in the germanic structures we have adaptated, Business German is a contender for a lingua franca (but for its inflexibility outside of nouns). cygnis insignis 17:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A weltanschauung of today's zeitgeist, I'd say. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Refspam
Hello again Chiswick Chap. I'm cleaning up old links I had in my notes one was. I wondered why then found Special:Contributions/83.215.123.233 (and your interventions at that talk page). Considering that this looks like typical refspam, do you think that all 30 remaining mainspace uses should also be removed? Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 10:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right. Go ahead, I'll support if need be. It might be wise to ping SmartSE who has already taken administrative action on the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Since 83.215.123.233's last edits were in January 2018 (although I did not really check every article to see if they returned under another address or user), it's likely that no admin action be needed at current time; since it's also not URL spam, there is no domain to report for the blacklist either.  Pinging  anyway, in case.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Squid
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Asana
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Asana 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 Farang Rak Tham -- Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Asana
The article Asana you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Asana 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 Farang Rak Tham -- Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Edits on Paramahansa Yogananda
Hello Chiswick, I appreciate many of your edits but there are two now that I need to discuss. (1) This page is set on American English not UK English, so the word honor should not be honour. (2) the size of PY's photo has been that size for many years. I see no need to change it except for personal preference by an editor. Your thoughts? Thanks for all you do Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The article is tagged EngvarB (not by me) which means "British English". On the PY image, I have indicated that I agree with the editor who changed it to the default, which on the whole is a well-chosen setting suitable for the great majority of articles, including that one. I would tend to oppose a larger setting for a guru-style figure on the grounds that this might appear to contravene WP:POV, so the default setting is certainly safer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

edits of page Pratishtha Sharma
we should discuss about sources. i am putting it on notice board. as you are not ready to discuss about deleted links which more than 100.


 * That's completely untrue, on the contrary I have repeatedly asked you to show which if any of the sources actually meet WP:RS; so far you have shown none at all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

To recapitulate...
Rather surprised at this addition and follow-ons, you're right that Luskin in the DI's Evolution News promoting ID is generally a poor source, but he's very wrong about textbook illustrations – see Icons of Evolution. Most of that section is cited to PZ Myers, who's a topic expert about the science and about ID. See Pharyngula: Textbooks and Haeckel again. I've not checked to see if there's any difference between Casey Luskin's claim and the book by Wells, but he seems to be no more than a blogger for the DI's CSC and it's likely to be the same list. . . dave souza, talk 09:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Mmm, I see, what a mess. I've been trying to steer a course between the factions here. I think that Gould's Ontogeny and Phylogeny is reliable. Someone has garbled my work on Gould's account of Wilhelm His - the word "His" triggers all kinds of mistaken gnomery. I have added that link as a 'further' link in the article, it would have been (and will continue to be) useful! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's a tricky subject. The DI and Luskin are very deceptive and at first sight Evolution News looks as though it should be legitimate, but when you know the code it's a red flag for creationist pseudoscience. Was a bit dubious about linking an article about a creationist book as Further information, but in practice it's essentially debunking and works pretty well for anyone wanting to go deeper into the topic. Haven't been following your edits, don't know if you've got access to, which I've read, and which looks relevant . . dave souza, talk 16:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting, many thanks. I don't have them here but may take a look sometime. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Theos Bernard
Sorry I seem to have confused Theos Bernard with a relative of his, Pierre Bernard (yogi). There is a source that claims Pierre Bernard was influenced by physical culture "Bernard held a life-affirming vision of yoga that combined modern yoga’s physical techniques—as detailed below, this form of yoga was influenced by modern physical culture—tantra’s erotico-mysticism, and a communal ethic based on his nondualist philosophy." , do you think that is an ok source? I know about physical culture but hardly anything about yoga sadly. I am trying to improve some articles on physical culture. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * : Pierre was his uncle, and the Oxford religion is a splendid source. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Haeckel monument
Hello, I just noticed that my photo of the Haeckel monument was removed from Ernst Haeckel article in February, without any explanation, and then a request added for a citation to prove that it existed. What was the motivation? (14:39, 18 April 2019‎ User:Regularuk)


 * Hi. I'm sorry if you feel hard done by in any way. I'm sure that all the editors involved were just looking at the article as objectively as possible. On the image, my feeling, which I believe is widely shared, is that gravestones on the whole add very little to biography articles. Major monuments like Nelson's Column are rather a different case, but the Haeckel stone looks unremarkable, and having just looked at it again, I can't say it adds anything necessary to the article.


 * As for the text, the general rule is that every claim in an article should be cited to a reliable source. The current text is "In Jena he is remembered with a monument at Herrenberg (erected in 1969)[47], an exhibition at Ernst-Haeckel-Haus[48] as well as at the Jena Phyletic Museum, which continues to teach about evolution and share his work to this day.[49]" which seems to me to cover the 'legacy' side of things well, and with three citations is now properly sourced. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Sturgeon
Didn't get a chance to work on it today and the Easter weekend is upon us. Happy Easter!! Atsme Talk 📧 02:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Chimpanzee
Hey. I was thinking of working on Chimpanzee for GA. Would you be interested? LittleJerry (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's go for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll probably order a book so it may be a bit before I dive in. LittleJerry (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. BTW the refs were in "Doe, John" format from 2004 until 13 January this year, when a user I shan't name suddenly changed them all to the accursed "Doe J" format, against policy. I suggest we put them back, it's much nicer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * For now could you fix up the taxonomy section like add information on classification history and a source for fossils? LittleJerry (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Possibly, the latter more likely. Pure taxonomic history not really my thing - there's actually quite a bit in there already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay nevermind. The book I'm looking at appears to have some information. LittleJerry (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * People are reverting changes, I'm not sure I can be bothered with this. I've started a talk page discussion. If it ends sensibly I may return. If not, not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion seems to have ended. LittleJerry (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you to tell me. OK, I'll gird up my loins and have another look at the Humans section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there anyway to combine the talk of tea parties and chimp TV shows. I feel they discuss the same practice. LittleJerry (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean when you say I reversed my decision to merge the paragraphs. I didn't originally write those paragraphs. I moved them from the Pan article. LittleJerry (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I going to see what I can do with diet and social behavior (some uncited lines in the latter). Do you think intelligence has enough? LittleJerry (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The intelligence section is certainly long enough for the rest of the article at the moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I suppose then you could internationalize the research section. LittleJerry (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll see what I can do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel like the previous pic was better because it shows the whole animal and has a portrait-like quality to it. Could you please change it back? LittleJerry (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel like the previous pic was far worse, because it shows cut lumps of wood that are jarringly artificial, and we are talking about the (wild, natural) species, not a zoo specimen. There are however dozens of pics on Commons, so rather than arguing about pic A or pic B, let's choose from pics C ... Z and beyond where we can surely find something that we both like (if that's really the criterion, there are thousands of viewers of this article). I'll have another look. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll work more on ecology and then social structure. I'm thinking the intelligence section could use introductory lines (including mirror-recognition and culture). Memory, Cooperation and Laughter could be part of the introduction as too much small sub-sections in a row may the section look choppy. Maybe you could look to Orangutan for a model. LittleJerry (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the article is mostly done, but do you think we'll run into problems with some of the books not giving pages (like Goodall's)? LittleJerry (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes it's about ready, but page numbers would be useful... ref #88 to The Chimpanzees of Gombe has page nos, but all the other refs a .. r to the same book are grouped together as #32 and lack pages! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll just have to replace 88 with 32. I'm afraid I don't have access to the book. LittleJerry (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * They're the same book, but 88 has page numbers as it should, so merging it with 32 is making it worse. In the USA you can get one for $11 (or free in a library I guess). Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. Can you get the Boesch C, Boesch-Achermann H. (2000) book? It also has no pages. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've worked around it using papers by Boesch and others. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll do a bit more fixing up in parts of the behavior section and then I think we're done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, seems like it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nominated. LittleJerry (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As we are waiting. Would you be able to expand on the octopus cladogram? Show the relationship between families and genera as you did for squid? LittleJerry (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, done - feel free to find better images, change their sizes, etc. Not quite sure why we needed to do this as the article's already at FA - unless you were thinking of going further to WikiJournal or something? Now that would be a challenge. Just curious. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No but FAs can still be improved here and there, especially if new information is published. LittleJerry (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Advice
You kind of beat me to it with your edit to MarieRussel1. However, I spent time working on my own personal message and I was wondering if you had any advice for what I was planning to say?:

Hello, MarieRussel1, welcome to Wikipedia!

I saw your edit to Larry Schultz. It can take a lot of time and effort to edit a Wikpedia article, so I wanted to explain why your edit is not currently present on the article. I reverted it, but that does not mean that your edit is gone forever. It hasn't been completely erased and can still be found on the "view history" tab. Since articles are works-in-progress and could be potentially improved, the history tab keeps track of every change made to an article.

Since Wikipedia is an encloypedia with more than 5 million articles, there are fundamental principles that are important to follow when making edits. One of these principles is that all contain must be written from a neutral point of view. Since this article is about a living person, it's especially important that information contained in sources is reliable.

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and that includes you! I appreciate the effort that you put into improving Wikipedia, because if no one edited Wikipedia, it wouldn't exist. I hope my message was helpful, but it's okay if you're still confused about how Wikipedia works. If you have any other questions, the Teahouse is a great place to ask! Clovermoss (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for visiting. I don't really have advice for this situation; if only we all knew the magic formula for setting newbies straight and turning them into keen, skilful, policy-compliant editors. The difficulty is that people are all different, and they arrive with their personal and sometimes professional goals, at which we can only guess based on (often extremely) limited evidence. In this case, I imagine this person is keen on Schultz-style yoga and probably personally knowledgeable about his life, at least the official version. That raises the likelihood that the sources we crave are at best WP:PRIMARY and at worst frankly WP:OR, both of which are going to come as a rude shock to the newbie. I try to break the news to people as gently as possible, with the minimum of big words and officialese.


 * What I really want is an editing system that lets you put the text you want to add in one field, the summary in another, and the details of the source you want to rely on in some more fields - requiring at least a title/date/publisher or title/url to be accepted as an edit. Otherwise, the 'Submit' button remains implacably greyed-out, and the penny drops in the newbie's brain that they better find a source of some kind. Until then... Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, taking a look at your edit to the article, their username seems to suggest a personal connection to the article subject. For the source idea, that is interesting. There is a blue link mentioning verifiability at the top of the edit page, but for those of us who live in a world where most people don't read the terms of service, that probably isn't going to stand out much to people. Clovermoss (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's very delicate when people have definite and close personal knowledge. Still, we have to try to find a way of saying that while we believe them, people on the fringe with any kind of odd point of view could make the same claim, and how would the rest of us know other than by asking for sources? In this case, the story either has been written up properly somewhere, or should be - I haven't found anything terribly solid yet, so maybe we need to wait until an academic has gotten their teeth properly into this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * On a (slightly) unrelated note: when does someone stop being a newbie? I'm not sure if it's still accurate to identify myself as a new editor. Most of my edits have been correcting typos, but I have also done some content stuff. Like this draft and adding inline citations to articles (a recent example, as of today, would be 2019 in American music). However, I still ask a lot of questions and while I've been reading through a lot of links found in Editor Navigation, I don't think I'm anywhere near the expertise everyone else seems to be at. Clovermoss (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You're definitely past the newbie stage... everyone makes progress at their own (volunteer) rate, there is no standard of comparison. Bit like modern yoga - it's not a competition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Yoga for women
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Yoga Stuff
Hey. I saw your request on my talk page. I'll see if I can find some time to shoot some of these āsanas with myself or some students (for marichyasana 2 and 4!). As for the proper spellings of āsana names, DM me and I'll share a glossary I've been making of corrected āsana spellings in IAST containing every pose from light on yoga and the first three ashtanga series. It also contains all the proper spelling for 25 mudras, all the tattvas of samkhya, principles of ayurveda, kleśas, yamas, niyamas, brahma viharas, kośas, etc. It corrects some of the common errors that Iyengar and Jois introduced way back when by using weird Hindi Tamil or Kannada transliteration conventions that people are still using (e.g. koundinyāsana --> kauṇḍinyāsana). Every root word has been confirmed in the dictionary. I will just ask that you keep the master list to yourself as I was hoping to use this in a book and some of the spellings required a little OR to figure out as best as possible. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * That's very kind. I'll stay mum. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent moves
You have moved classic yoga texts which contain yoga information and spiritual guidance to the 'Modern Yoga' book category. Please revert or at least add back the books to the correct category. It seems you are attempting to place all of yoga into Modern yoga which does not encompass or even actually pertain to yoga. By moving books such as Be Here Now and Yogananda's classic Autobiography of a Yoga into "modern yoga". (which comes close to a made up term which has nothing to do with yoga) I have to wonder at your intent and knowledge level. Please consider repopulating the category with what you have removed. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, no, I'm doing no such thing, and "wonder at your intent and knowledge level" is extremely close to a personal attack, which as you know is not acceptable.


 * Here's what's going on: I've created/reused three equal categories for Ancient yoga texts, Hatha yoga texts and Modern yoga books, and have populated the various texts into these. Yogananda is "classic" in one very good sense but "modern" in several others: his work is certainly not Ancient or Hatha. Being 19th/early 20th century perhaps we should have an additional category, that might be the answer, but Yogananda was certainly modern in the sense that he was writing for a modern, Western audience, presenting and importantly adapting the material to suit. I'm very happy to discuss, neutrally and objectively, how to categorise; the great majority of the hundreds of items are certainly uncontroversial, so let's do this calmly and rationally. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * More of a personal observation augmented by these category changes. Taking one of many, you moved God Talks with Arjuna: The Bhagavad Gita out of the Yoga texts category and into the Modern yoga category. The introduction to Modern yoga shows that the article is not about yoga as a whole but about the part of yoga which has to do with stretching and gaining conscious control of the muscle system (we've discussed this before). How if God Talks with Arjuna: The Bhagavad Gita solely categorized into that? Crowley's book, Ram Das' work, almost all the others you've now reclassified, are much more than stretching, and I don't even know if they are even mentioned in many of them. You went through the category and it seems have put anything dated past a certain point into 'Modern yoga' which is being redefined as non-spiritual - fine if others are accepting it here but these texts and books surely do not fit into that category alone and can include more than one category classification. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I propose the category 'Classic yoga books' to fit in between medieval and modern, which I cheerfully agree fits better. Modern yoga is absolutely not limited to asanas, however; many modern yoga teachers combine asanas and meditation, use pranayama and yoga nidra, and so on. The emphasis on spirituality is variable but modern yoga is not limited to exercise. This is true of the more adventurous pioneers of mindful yoga and of ordinary yoga teachers down the town hall, at least round here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of Modern yoga reads "Modern yoga is a physical activity consisting largely of postures called asanas, often connected by flowing sequences called vinyasas, sometimes accompanied by the breathing exercises of pranayama, and usually ending with a period of relaxation or meditation." Initially reclassifying so many important books into that definition is what brought me here to again focus on what yoga "is". Classic yoga as a category seems better but not fully inclusive. The sutras, in particular, are not just "ancient" or "classic" but are the foundation of yoga in every age, including "modern". Randy Kryn (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As I already explained above, the Sutras are "Ancient yoga texts". That is a sub-category of "Yoga texts and documentation" so nothing should go in both categories. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

And just to be clear for any lurkers, I believe that Chiswick Chap has made an extraordinary amount of good and expanding edits in Wikipedia's yoga collection, and has improved it greatly. My concern relates to my perceived overuse and definition of "modern yoga" on Wikipedia and, as usual, the "truth" may be somewhere in-between (or nowhere to be found!). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I may add that one should never judge a book by its cover; the Modern yoga article is much more complex than its first sentence, and it is practically impossible to say everything as a rock-solid dictionary definition in that first sentence. But I'll try to add a few words there to the effect of resurgent modern spirituality finding an outlet by transforming the revived ancient etc etc. In an OR-free way, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hatha Yoga: The Report of A Personal Experience
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hatha Yoga: The Report of A Personal Experience 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 FreeKnowledgeCreator -- FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hatha Yoga: The Report of A Personal Experience
The article Hatha Yoga: The Report of A Personal Experience you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hatha Yoga: The Report of A Personal Experience 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 FreeKnowledgeCreator -- FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

AfD Suggestion
Hello, I believe the AfD discussion Articles for deletion/Weedon Pinkney Priory can be closed, as the discussion is heavily in favour of keeping the article. Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. But I'm an involved editor so I can't do it... It'll get closed quite soon per viam naturalis. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Cladogram suggestion
Hey would you be able to make a new cladogram for tammar wallaby, based on Figure 2 of this article. LittleJerry (talk) 05:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, done. You probably need to do some formatting, and to supply the full citation. You may also want to talk a bit about the methodology that Dodt et al used, and the breakup of the old Macropus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

FA for megabat?
Hi Chiswick Chap, I'm planning on nominating megabat for FA this month, which would be my first FA nomination. The FA nomination page recommends that first-time nominators find a mentor to assist with the process. Since you are one of the editors who brought Bat to FA, I thought you might be the natural choice here. Let me know if you'd be interested. Enwebb (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Enwebb, all right, I'm happy to do what I can, but I caution that I have had relatively little recent experience with the finer details of the FA process. Perhaps we might collectively approach User:Cwmhiraeth as well to monitor my clumsy mentoring! That would I think be useful for both of us. The key thing will be to follow the Featured article advice closely; I will be able to use that to help you along the right lines, and I can certainly apply a little of my rusty biologist's knowledge to look for gaps, too. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Under other circumstances, I would have been glad to help. However Enwebb is a contestant in the WikiCup and I think it would be inappropriate for me, as a judge, to cooperate with one contestant. You could ask Casliber. He is also a WikiCup contestant and each of you them could score points in that way. I cooperated with him for my first FA, Western jackdaw. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cwmhiraeth. Casliber, would you care to lend a mentor-mentoring hand? Or be co-mentor, as you wish? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback thus far, Chiswick Chap and. I requested a copy edit from GOCE a few weeks ago, so hopefully that will happen relatively soon. Anything else I should be doing right now? Enwebb (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Animal husbandry
A new editor, a student by the look of things, has rewritten part of Animal husbandry, and I think they are POV pushing. I prefer the previous version, but I don't want to discourage a new editor. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it's both (slightly) POV-ish and UNDUE. The articles Environmental impact of livestock and Environmental impact of meat production should be sufficient, we don't need more here, or at most just a sentence on water usage perhaps. This is a summary of a summary, not a space for enviro-ranting. Suggest full or partial revert. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi
Hello. Help copy edit for article. Thanks you. Cheung2 (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. I know nothing of that topic and am not in the guild of copy editors, but a quick look at the article reveals nothing obviously terribly wrong. I expect a request to the guild will be productive. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

sharon gannon - list of publications
My apologies, I am still learning about editing on Wikipedia and how to effectively communicate with other editors. You see there was already a flaw with the page layout as there was both a bibliography and author section to the article prior to my edit. I was only asked to add all of her books and the various editions in other languages as those specifically had been missing. I was only trying to follow the format of the "list of works" template. Yes I knew the information was displayed twice which I agree was redundant, however, I undid your edit as I needed to recover the info on the various editions in other languages. I'm sorry if it came off as spiteful, I was only doing what I was asked to do. I appreciate that you took the time to reformat the page after I restored the info as I was unsure about how to go about formatting the page. RyanMinkoff (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, no worries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

re: "um, multiple authors of Wikipedia article, no?"
... at WikiJournal article nominations, see this ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm very pleased at the formatting change which removes the wrong implication. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Jane Grigson
Good afternoon, CC! SchroCat and I have put Mrs Grigson's article up for peer review. If, as a fellow toiler in the culinary vineyard, you have time and inclination to look in and let us have your comments it will be much appreciated. Quite understand if not, naturally. Best regards,  Tim riley  talk   16:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Modified my comment
I modified my comment here after you replied as I did not want to leave the number of credits since I decided there was too great a risk someone on Facebook will use it to identify who I was referring to. I do not want to run any risk the person being referred to will be identified. There is still a risk from the history, however I'm not sure I'll easily convince anyone to revdel so I'll just hope no one notices. Nil Einne (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

European hare scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that European hare has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 11 August 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/August 11, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems good to me! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you today for "a well-known and widespread mammal native to western Eurasia. It is the quintessential Lepus species and is known for its active breeding behavior; the source of the term 'mad as a March hare'."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Distributed element circuit up for FA
As the GA reviewer of this article, I thought you might be interested in commenting at its FA nomination. SpinningSpark 18:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Ken Machin
I wonder if Ken Machin deserves his own wiki entry. I genuinely don't have enough "contextualising background knowledge" to have an opinion worth sharing on that. But if he does, you look as though you may have the familiarity with potential sources to be in a position to draft something up. I hope I am not being unhelpfully presumptious in sharing this thought. Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Possibly. I'd say it was borderline; it's certainly better that he has a redirect, cited works, and a mention than nothing, as was the case before. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yoga for therapeutic purposes
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yoga for therapeutic purposes 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 Enwebb -- Enwebb (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yoga for therapeutic purposes
The article Yoga for therapeutic purposes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yoga for therapeutic purposes 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 Enwebb -- Enwebb (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Paris, rainy day
Saw you were adding to Paris Street; Rainy Day. Do you see the cat in the painting? Once you see it you can't unsee it (kind of like the FedEx logo). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * there's one here ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is, and now I cannot unsee it. The docents at the Art Institute include the cat in their summary of the picture. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The thin one, I guess, not the fat one... Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Will tell you but now you will not unsee it. The white space between the main couple is shaped like a cat. The fat one is worth the price of admission though. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes that was my thin cat, indeed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it. You have a keen eye and a FedExlogo-worthy imagination. Good meowing around with you. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Camouflage
Thank you. I had just been reading your comments on the talk-page!Protozoon (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC) PS. nice pics.Protozoon (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

You seem to have more time for WP than I do (yes, in August, I can do a brief splurge, but my pumpkin has already arrived...) and invest a lot of yourself in it, for which you deserve all our thanks. You are either an artist yourself or else deeply into the art-world, and you are all over military camouflage (I'm beginning to stalk you...). May I therefore suggest you have the expertise - it's Wikipedia, none would be even better - a 'Camouflage Dev & Trg Ctre, (Home Forces)' or similar? At present, the list of Cam Offs ('camoufleurs') concentrates solely on the Middle East. What was going on in GB, 1940-44? We know most of it was going on at Farnham. So, who was doing it at Farnham and elsewhere? Answer: FB Beddington, Richard (Maclean) Buckley, Penrose, Spence, Messel, etc. Try also: Eastern Command Camo School. These would include more artists and designers and would redress the balance. The Desert was the active front, but there were some troops in Britain too. Regards to my old coxed-4 stretch...


 * : Many thanks, and yes, I once spent a lot of time on the Camouflage family of articles, quite a few years ago now. I was however focussed on zoology not military, and covered the mil part only where necessary to make sense of the zoology, people like Cott connecting the two. I'm sure you are on to something with Farnham, where everyone was trained, and your list of names, some of which are familiar to me; but I have no (or very little) desire to go there, really. As for what they were doing at Farnham before D-Day, you know the answer: the only open front was in the Western Desert, so they trained Cott and the rest; then they prepared deceptions for Normandy. I think you'll have to take your time and work slowly on Camouflage Dev & Trg Ctre, (Home Forces) to your own satisfaction (maybe a snappier title is needed for that, hm). If you do, please take care to use (or  ). All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response. I obviously know the names, the organisational structures, etc., - the military content. I don't have the time or technical savvy required to put it in place. I usually put refs, but even when I do, it is often in the wrong manner (!). I have clearly done much to irk you in the last few days, but you have held your tongue, and I mine, and we part on amicable terms (?). Do google anything I've put that you're not happy about - I try to give a 'steer' for others on this "collaborative encyclopedia" to work with. Some delete, some work to improve the content. WP clearly provides some benefit to me, because I still come back, knowing the atmosphere; I wish I had the time to read the pages and pages of style-guides and become a 'proper Wikipedian', viewed as an asset not a threat. The good news is that my time is up for a long while, so keep up the even-handed page-protection, things should be calmer for some months. Protozoon (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Le Guin
Hey Chiswick Chap; since you reviewed this at GAN, I wonder if you'd care to leave comments at the FAC? Vanamonde (Talk) 04:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello
Hello Chiswick Chap. I see that you are active in talk pages. That's why I'd like to read your opinion on this discussion: Talk:Yazidis. Maybe you are interested in this discussion. with kind regards, B9Xyz (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Kind of you to say so, but it was only by chance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Formatting references
I have just noticed that someone has changed the parameters of cite web and cite book, so that masses of citations are coming up as errors, see the reference section of Bee for example. I don't know whether this is wikignomic action, change of policy, vandalism or what, nor do I know where such things are discussed. By the way, tomorrow I ought to be able to get back to Embioptera. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * : Yes, those CS1 "errors" are now everywhere. Basically a way of getting the edit-count of a thousand gnomes up a slice. Worse, putting "website=" into articles which use Harvard links causes a mass of LUA errors, breaking the mechanism altogether. nice.


 * I've done some work on the webspinners, including a diagram of their amazing folding wings. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * : the errors have all vanished again. Perhaps someone has switched off the "new" version of the CS1 code? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Embioptera
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Embioptera 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 Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dealing with this. I have some real life problems at the moment which will make my availability for editing erratic. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. Hope you get things sorted out soon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Embioptera ref
Hi, sth is wrong with 1st ref in Embioptera. --Hanberke (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Checked it and formatted the authors. Everything else seems all right from the source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Embioptera
The article Embioptera you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Embioptera 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 Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Deepak Tripathi
Dear Chiswick Chap,

There is a new tag on this article. As you have worked on this in the past, I wonder if you would kindly have time again to satisfy the tag.

Thank you.

Deepak Tripathi PhD FRHistS FRAS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:DC87:F00:75CD:3CEC:96E9:F8A9 (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Well that was a long time ago! I've had a go, and done a little tidying-up too. The tag seems quite misplaced to me, actually. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks.

Tripathi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:DC87:F00:75CD:3CEC:96E9:F8A9 (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Reference shortcut names
Hello, thanks for your message. I will be more mindful of proper reference names next time. Best to you too :) Hammelsmith (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Embioptera has been nominated for Did You Know
Hello, Chiswick Chap. Embioptera, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. EnterpriseyBot (talk!) 12:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sexual abuse by yoga gurus
The article Sexual abuse by yoga gurus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sexual abuse by yoga gurus 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 AhmadLX -- AhmadLX (talk) 09:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ecstatic dance
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ecstatic dance 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 Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Snakefly
I think I have about finished with this. How about you? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, I'm ready. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yoga the Iyengar Way
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yoga the Iyengar Way 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yoga the Iyengar Way
The article Yoga the Iyengar Way 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:Yoga the Iyengar Way for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yoga the Iyengar Way
The article Yoga the Iyengar Way you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yoga the Iyengar Way 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ambush predator
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ambush predator 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 Enwebb -- Enwebb (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ambush predator
The article Ambush predator you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ambush predator 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 Enwebb -- Enwebb (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

On links for gold open access articles
Hello, we discussed earlier how adding |doi-access=free helps OAbot and others identify citations which may not need additional links. I have now coded a bot to add this piece of information automatically on thousands of articles. This will help avoid the edits you complained about, but only if the request for approval is granted. You may want to comment there. Nemo 11:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ecstatic dance
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ecstatic dance 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 Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Subtle Body
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Subtle Body 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 Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Subtle Body
The article The Subtle Body 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:The Subtle Body for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Embioptera
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ecstatic dance
The article Ecstatic dance you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ecstatic dance 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 Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Subtle Body
The article The Subtle Body you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Subtle Body 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 Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Bewick
I've just come across the Thomas Bewick article: very nice reading – an excellent piece of work. Just thought I'd let you know. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you, thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Dicritic in title page move
Hi, you had earlier talked to me about moving articles with diacritics. There is a discussion going on at Talk:Vṛścik‌‌‌a, pls have a look. Crashed greek (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

List of direct disciples of Yogananda
Thank you for separating this list from Yogananda's page. When I created this important list the word Noted was included because this list is not all of his direct disciples just the Noted ones. Please add the word to the title - List of noted direct disciples of Yogananda. Thank you! Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the approval. We never use "noted" or "notable" for the sufficient reason that we will never place (or allow to be placed) any non-notable people in such a list; everyone must be bluelinked to an existing Wikipedia article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Light on Yoga
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Light on Yoga 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 Vami IV -- Vami IV (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Light on Yoga
The article Light on Yoga you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Light on Yoga 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 Vami IV -- Vami IV (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Bat TFA
Maybe this is too late a notice, but I'm thinking bat would be a better TFA for October 31. There's plenty of room in November for Michael Collins. LittleJerry (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I should think so, and will support you if you try to change this. I have no idea of the mechanics but suspect you may be right about the challenge at this short notice. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Nice work on Yin Yoga
Hello Chiswick Chap, I have just looked in on Yin Yoga after a long lapse, and am very happy to see it much improved by your edits. You have added useful material that broadens the article while preserving salient points. I have not compared it in detail to the version that I worked on a few years back, but it looks like the article is tighter, and even better sourced than before. Excellent work! EMP (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much - such appreciation is rare. I've worked all the way across the post-1900 yoga articles and am trying to get the most substantial of them to GA; 7 have reached there so far. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Snakefly
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Snakefly 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 RecycledPixels -- RecycledPixels (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doga (yoga)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Doga (yoga) 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 Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 08:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Yoga in the United States
Hello, Chiswick Chap. You may have noticed that Yoga in the United States is not displaying the good article icon, which should have been automatically added due to the passing of the article at Talk:Yoga in the United States/GA1. I don't know why this is the case, but I suspect it may have something to do with the article renaming that occurred during the review. I have posted a question about this here, but it has been ignored so far. A possible solution, if no one suggests anything better, might be for you to nominate the article again. I would then pass it, and the GA icon should then be added automatically. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The bot is easily confused. I've put the icon on the page manually. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you. That resolves the matter. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doga (yoga)
The article Doga (yoga) 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:Doga (yoga) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doga (yoga)
The article Doga (yoga) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Doga (yoga) 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 Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

13 years of editing!

 * Gosh, many thanks. A misspent youth, or something. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you all. Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda, you're amazing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Username?
unit 108 is me incorporated. unit108.com is me as a photographer and unit108.yoga is me as a yoga business. My US name is Serge Cashman, for whatever it's worth. My Russian and Israeli names are quite different. Do I still need to rename my account? The edits on Indra Devi are mostly true to Goldberg's book and correspond to Russian interviews and articles. The only thing she is incorrect about is stating that Eugenia and her mother Alexandra were noblewomen. Alexandra's father was (Indra's grandfather) but he didn't allow them to inherit the title. I would need to do a research to find out where Indra Devi said that, but it's pretty clear she never claimed to have the title (page 9 of "Forever Young, Forever Healthy") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unit108yoga (talk • contribs) 03:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be wise and according to policy to change the username. On edits, the requirement is to cite reliable sources, as I seem to have to keep on repeating: it's the core message --- we go by sources, not by what anyone thinks or believes or knows is true. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Plus - I told you I don't know how Wikipedia works, so no point shaming me. I knew most things about Indra Devi prior to Goldberg's book. Here's an interview with her for Russian TV from 1989 (republished in 2009) that gives a bunch of details Goldberg doesn't know about, because she doesn't speak Russian, obviously. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEjEM4VMNoY. How do I include that as a source? It's obviously more reliable than a book some American wrote years after her death. 0:28 is about Komisarjevsky studio, for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unit108yoga (talk • contribs) 04:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what shaming anyone would mean, have not tried to shame you, and have no intention of trying. I am just attempting to get things done properly, which means, again, citing reliable sources. The repeated claims that you don't know the mechanisms do not get you very far: if you want to contribute, learn the basics: they are few, and will be enough to do something useful. Knowing things is of no use on Wikipedia because personal knowledge cannot be verified, and as I keep on saying, verifiability is what it's about. I explained (and have now demonstrated many times in the article) how to cite sources. YouTube is very doubtful as a source, and probably not usable, I'm afraid. We can cite established newspapers, books, and academic journals. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, pls listen to Chiswick's advice I along with Chiswick have told you many times before you add an information to an article you need to cite a reliable source, however despite your friendly advices you continued to add unsourced content so pls stop it and cite a reliable source if you want some information. And as Chiswick said, YouTube is not a reliable source, you can cite established newspapers, books and journals. Also, pls consider signing your posts using four tildes. Andrew Base (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Caveasphaera - earliest animals?
FWIW - seems Caveasphaera, a newly created article, re a multicellular organism found in 609-million-year-old rocks, may be one of the very earliest instances of animal evolution - please feel free to review and ce if you like - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Irene Papas
Hello Chiswick Chap, and thank you for appreciating my change on the English article of Irene Papas. I have noticed that the same unsourced link has been also posted on the Albanian and Turkish respective articles of Irene Papas. I tried editing them, but my edit is pending approval (in the Albanian article for many weeks now). Could you please approve the changes i made? I assume you have pending changes reviewer rights, that's why i ask. Thanks in advance for your time and appreciation of countering vandalism.


 * Not sure I can - it's hard to see what's going on in those languages but I think since I haven't edited there I can't approve anything. Best thing would be to ask an admin there to protect those pages; maybe the RPP button works over there, who knows. I've asked for RPP over here: perhaps it will be granted but usually they only do it for a short period at first, however long the period of hassle has been. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Suhpalacsa01
Hello Chiswick Chap. Thank you for appreciating my changes on the article "Ascalaphidae". I know the group well and hope to make more changes as the systematics of the group progress. (talk) 3:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Good stuff, and enjoy Wikipedia. I've only seen the European owlfly a few times, a magical sight. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons notes
Thanks for correcting my error. How should I link to an image on Commons which has explanatory notes please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Good question. Really, it's an odd thing to do to have a notes link with an image instead of a text caption. I think the right answer is to summarize the notes in a brief caption, and put the Commons link in a footnote or reference. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Cladogram
Hello. Would you be able to make a cladogram for me based on this? You don't have to include Vulpes or Urocyon. Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes I can give it a go. I assume you'll add the photos later... Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay. Just remember to put it in a box. LittleJerry (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * On second thought, please remove the bush dog and Sechuran fox. LittleJerry (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * That's very kind of you to say so. Happy Christmas! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Adaptation article
Good God man! This article has been sitting in WP:GAC since 1 October - what IS going on?

Hello chap from Chiswick. Back in 2017, you and I knocked over the Hybrid GA in a fairly short amount of time. It would be a pity if Adaptation saw in the New Year still sitting in the queue, unappreciated and unloved. How are you placed over the next few weeks? Else, it may be a 2020 undertaking. Regards,  William Harris talk  11:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd be delighted: after the 28th would do nicely. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I look forward to a post-Christmas review. In the meantime I will do some initial scouting around but nothing formal.  William Harris Canis lupis track.svg talk Canis lupis track.svg 07:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adaptation
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Adaptation 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 William Harris -- William Harris (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. Another one added to your Christmas/New Year GA trove!  William Harris Canis lupis track.svg talk Canis lupis track.svg 11:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yoga in Britain
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yoga in Britain 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 Freeknowledgecreator -- Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yoga in Britain
The article Yoga in Britain 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:Yoga in Britain for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freeknowledgecreator -- Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for clarification
Firstly I’d like to thank you for the link under resources on your page to a google books citation tool - very useful! You recently reverted an edit I made on the Chakra article and I can see the sense in that _ it was very poorly referenced. However you went on to make a comment that I found confusing, so perhaps you could elaborate? You said “and the lead section is just a summary, no place to add new content or refs”. Obviously it’s not the place for adding a lot of content, or without good referencing, but there seems to be an implication that no matter how well referenced or how brief or relevant to a summary overview of the subject you believe that the section is now complete and closed to any further editing. Is that what I should be understanding from your comment? Dakinijones (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Snakefly
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Snakefly 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Peace Dove
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   14:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Snakefly
The article Snakefly you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Snakefly 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yoga Body
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yoga Body 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adaptation
The article Adaptation you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Adaptation 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 William Harris -- William Harris (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yoga Body
The article Yoga Body you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yoga Body 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)