User talk:Donlammers/Archive 3

WP Zoo collaboration templates
I've made a template to put at the top of the main WPZoo page so people will know what to collaborate on. May I put it there or do I need your permission? Takinzinnia (talk &bull; contribs) 22:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You can put it there. Thanks for asking, but even the project site itself is really a collaboration (I don't own it), so you can go ahead and do things. I'm in the middle of a release at work right now, so I may not get a chance to look at it for a couple of days. Don Lammers (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Takinzinnia (talk &bull; contribs) 05:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * How is everything going Don? Just thought I would check in and see if you needed anything? Best regards Zoo  Pro  12:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, good to hear from you. Mostly right now I'm in the middle of a software release in real life, and just keeping up with making sure that nothing bad happens to zoo articles. Some IP guy is editing from multiple addresses and putting unsourced and even wrong information (though some of it is correct), but I think we may even have a handle on that now -- at least he's putting his URLs in the edit comments instead of just insisting that the information is true. Once I get through this release, I have one editor that is interested in resurrecting collaboration (and willing to do something to make it happen) so I will probably see if I can help him.
 * I hope everything is going well with the new exhibit. Wish I could see it, but it's a bit of a trip out there from here. It would be great if you or someone else could do some photos for Commons. Don Lammers (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

RE: Polar Bears n the Wotwots
Please look at the wotwots articles talk page. 58.163.175.174 (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I am Surprised
Have you really been to all the zoos on the plant as you know all the anmals. 58.163.175.192 (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Singapore Zoo
Haven't been cjecking zoo articles recently I see. Someone reverted an edit of mine when I said sinagpore zoo has Gibbons, cassowaries, penguins and gelands when tehy do because tehy were on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.148.117.110 (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You're also welcome to correct me about the african animals on the adelaide zoo article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.148.117.110 (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject Zoo Collaboration Dept.
(First of all, congrats on becoming the new coordinator! So I've come to you for help.) I've noticed the lack of new collaboration proposals since February of 2010, so I was thinking of adding one. However, the WAZA article still needs citations to become B-class, and you only recently up-rated the PDZA article to C-class. So, what class should an article get to before we collaborate on a new article? FA class seems a bit high to me. Takinzinnia (talk &bull; contribs) 22:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was going to thank you for the work you've been doing, but have been on vacation and am just getting back. I kind of took over when ZooPro "retired", though he says he will be doing some work going forward. My current feeling is that B-class is good enough for now -- we have bigger problems, like over 300 stubs. I've been working on getting the actual zoo articles to start-class and helping out where I can otherwise when other editors had a "favorite" article (mostly with copy editing and expanding citations). However, if you want to tackle something to GA class, I will try to help. GA is an outside review, and as far as I'm concerned about as far as it's ever worth going (as far as I can tell FA is just a chance for the religious MoS advocates to get their say, and I just don't care about these issues enough). Anyway, if you have a particular article or type of article you want to tackle, we should probably post it and see if we can get other takers. One thing I am not very confident of is determining when a short article actually qualifies for B or GA status because the topic is notable but there just isn't a lot to say about it (see Navajo Nation Zoological and Botanical Park, which was just given GA status). I don't have a huge amount of experience either, so I mostly go by a set of rules that I wrote here, which only covers up to B. Let me know wht you wnt to tackle, and we'll try to see if we can get other collaborators. Don Lammers (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! I agree that Memphis Zoo should be collaborated upon first and then we could tackle Cincinnati Zoo later. I'll nominate Memphis Zoo for collaboration right now. Takinzinnia (talk &bull; contribs) 05:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Tuck Zoo Atlanta in the back of your mind as well. It looks like it's currently basically a C except for the fact that it doesn't have enough citations (which of course is the time consuming part), and could be expanded to B fairly readily after that. Hopefully you will get some takers. I will help where I can, but basically I also patrol all the zoo articles for vandalism and such, so I tend not to have much time for actual article work except on the weekends. Don Lammers (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Please don't have me blocked. I take out the message on JamesBWatson's talk page do be sure of that. Anyway, you could correct the adelaide zoo article if you wish, And I have seen on the web that Auckland zoo has Giant Pandas though they're not on the map. And type in penguins singapore zoo and you'll see emperor penguins. 192.148.117.95 (talk) 03:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not block you. You were blocked for adding what looks like vandalism in many places. In zoo articles (which I watch) this means adding animals without citation. You need to have an actual URL where you found the animal listed, not just "it was on the map". In fact, in one statement you said "surely they have these animals", which is definitely not a reason to add them. In other messages I left several links for you to look at regarding WikiPedia policy, which you should read and understand if you want to contribute. WikiPedia is not a free-for-all like many people assume -- there are rules and you need to follow them. In addition, you are editing from many URLs, which makes it look like you are trying to work around a block.


 * I can help with the citation issues now that I'm back from vacation. Just copy the URL where you find the information from your browser and place it in square brackets [ ] just after the text that it supports, and I will check it and expand it for you. YOU can help at least the fact of having multiple URLs (which may be simply because of your network setup) by actually signing up and logging on so that you can be properly identified and so that others can reliably communicate with you without having to post on multiple URLs in the hopes of reaching you. If you do this, please make sure to identify yourself at least to me and to JamesBWatson so that we know you are doing this in good faith. If you continue editing under different URLs or switch user names, you will just keep getting blocked.


 * You also need to do your research a bit better. Otherwise you will keep get reverted on sight because nobody has the time to check everything you do. You keep adding detail without citing, at least some of the edits are not correct, and considering that you just keep adding, but it takes time to verify, it's much easier just to revert and leave the article "as is". Auckland Zoo HAD (past tense) giant pandas, which you can see |here. They are mentioned in the History section of the article, which is appropriate for something notable in the past. They do not belong on the current animal list. I have added appropriate citations to the History section and removed them from the current animal list. I cannot find any evidence of emperor penguins at the Singapore Zoo. Please provide an actual URL, not just a Google search. All photos and references I have found are of African Penguins. There are 5 species of penguin at Jurong Bird Park (owned by the same people, but not the same facility), including king penguins (which look a lot like emperor penguins). And no, I did not know any of this until I did the research, which (although it is ultimately improving the article) is taking up a lot of my time. Don Lammers (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You are not endearing yourself to anyone by trying to avoid blocks. I have reverted your edits on JamesBWatson's talk page, which constitute vandalism by WikiPedia standards. At this point, your blocks are only for a short period, but if you continue vandalizing and disruptive editing (which evidently you are doing on many non-zoo articles as well), not to mention avoiding blocks, the periods will get longer. Don Lammers (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

JamesBWatson
That bully had protected the zoo articles without permission. I'll ask him to expand the protection as a month is TOO LONG.
 * He is an administrator and has protected the articles because of your consistent additions for which you are not providing sources. Don Lammers (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, he reverted a true edit on the Adelaide Zoo articles about the African animals. Please sort it out. 58.7.128.239 (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What matters is not "truth", but that the information is verifiable (see WP:Verify). It is the responsibility of the editor placing the information to properly cite it (see WP:CITE), not all other editors to try to figure out what is verifiable. You are NOT allowed to put information in a article "from your own observation". This is original research (see WP:OR). In addition, your statement in one zoo article that "all zoos have this animal" has hardly helped. Don Lammers (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sure you want them unprotected as well. I've asked him to expand the protection. 58.7.128.239 (talk) 07:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have problems editing those articles. You have problems because you are editing from multiple URLs. This not only keeps your edit count low on each URL, but constitutes what is called sockpuppetry on Wikipedia (see WP:SOCK). You have gotten in trouble with edits (and not just on zoo articles either if I can judge from the multiple talk pages), but this has nothing to do with why you were blocked. You were blocked for use of multiple accounts (when you don't sign in, each URL you use counts as a separate account). When one was blocked, you evaded the block by using a different URL. It is possible that this is because of your network setup. However, as I have already mentioned elsewhere several times, you can solve this particular problem yourself by logging in each time you want to edit, so that you are identified as a unique editor. Since you continue to use multiple URLs, I can no longer assume good faith on your part. Don Lammers (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adelaide_Zoo&diff=prev&oldid=455353598
 * He reverted a true edit. We must never talk to him EVER. 58.7.128.239 (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you are the one that we should not be talking to. A lot of material you put up turns out not to be supported by what I can find. I don't have the time (nor does JamesBWatson or anyone else) to spend sorting out what is true and not when you are not providing citation IN THE ARTICLE, and when I do go looking you are often wrong. For instance, you put giant pandas in Aukland Zoo twice so far, and they were at the zoo 20 years ago for 3 months, and are in fact already mentioned in the History section. Providing a URL on my talk page is not helpful. It needs to be in the article after the text it supports. For an animal list, we can simply put all of the refs after the lead sentence rather than having a ref after each animal, but the refs we use, together, must support the list. Basically, so far your record has been very spotty, so nobody is inclined to give you much benefit of the doubt and the tendency is to revert on sight. If you start following the rules, this could change, but this means you need to stop editing from multiple accounts, and start including URLs with your edits. Don Lammers (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You should also take a look at WP:LISTS. WikiPedia is mostly about prose, not about lists, and there is also debate about whether these lists are even appropriate in zoo articles. I don't include lists like this in any zoo articles I start, though I don't remove existing lists either. A complete list of animals is not all that relevant to an article about a zoo. It's much more important to have a good description of the exhibits, and in that description include representative animals for each exhibit. Animal lists are (IMHO) distracting, impossible to keep up, and difficult to cite. Don Lammers (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the wikiproject zoo, zoo articles are not to be protected. He's no member of the project and was not asked to do so. You're either on the IP's side or his side. And mind looking at the Adelaide Zoo article animals. Promise never to talk to him again. He patrols Blinky Bill, not zoos. 58.110.241.60 (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Where do you get this information? Projects have nothing to do with protecting articles. Point me to where it says such nonsense and I will correct it so there is no confusion (I could not find the word "protect" anywhere on the WikiProject pages). In addition, IP addresses have nothing to do with whether or not you are allowed to edit (unless your IP address is specifically blocked, which is separate from an article being protected). Watching your edits, I have learned that you are not thorough about your research, and that you do not cite where you get things from (putting at least an actual URL next to the text it references rather than just making a statement in the edit comment like "it's true" or "it's in another map"). In addition, you are editing under multiple IP, which is specifically against WP rules. To avoid this problem, all you need to do is log in conistently. It's easy and it's quick. Continuing to badmouth admins is not going to get you anywhere either. I will look at the Adelaid zoo animals when I have time. Right now I'm not doing a lot of editing, and I'm trying to help a couple of other editors who are actually being constructive. In the meantime I may just revert on site because I can't trust your research. And I certainly will not stop talking with JamesBWatson just because of your ramblings. Don Lammers (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Zhand38
Why was I blocked for no reason because you didn't like my lists even though I changed it 40 other times to satisfy your needs. 74.83.218.178 (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You were not blocked because of me. You were blocked first because you refused to cite your information, you persisted in writing in a style that sounds more like a travelogue than an encyclopedia, and did not understand that you don't own what you put on Wikipedia and yelled at any editors that changed anything you posted, and finally because you evaded blocks and edited under multiple names (like you are doing now). All of these things are against the rules, and have been explained to you in detail, yet you continue to blame other people for your own actions and continue to claim there was no reason for your being blocked, proving that you really do not understand. I tried to help, but quite frankly I'm just going to let the admins do what they think they need to now. If you put up information that is valid and follow Wikipedia styles, I will not revert your edits, tough I may copy edit. However, as WikiProject Zoo coordinator, I am watching all of the zoo articles and will revert edits that are not encyclopedic and are not referenced properly. Don Lammers (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably should've commented on here but I left you a note saying you were right. Zhand38 208.102.209.78 (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Wotwots
Have you seen the Wotwots? Try find all the zoos each animal was filmed in. And try making a list that hides animals for all the zoo articles if you please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CuriousWikian590 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of doing what you request, as it serves no purpose. Someone whot works on TV or movie articles can work this out (if they care). If you are that curious about it, you should do it. This would make a great addition to the WotWots article (asssuming you referenced things correctly, since it is currently very short on verifiability), but would not contribute to zoo articles unless as a note that some episodes of the WotWots were filmed at the zoo (which would usually go under a "media" section). Such a list would tell us what animals were present when the filming was done, but not what animals currently reside at the zoos.
 * Note that we can't reference the WotWots article as our source for a zoo article. We need to reference a reliable third party source. If the other article has decent sources, you can copy them, but in this case there isn't much to copy as that article is not very well cited.
 * A dynamic full list of animals is just about impossible to maintain while meeting verifiability (see WP:Verify) and "No Original Research" (see WP:OR) standards on WikiPedia (zoos don't usually have a full list that is public, and you are your own personal observations from walking around the zoo are original research), plus long lists are discouraged in Wikipedia (see WP:List) and disrupt the flow of the article. Zoo articles are much easier to read if you just create a representative list of notable animals (which tend not to change much over time) and incorporate this into the narrative description of the exhibits, rather than obsessively trying to maintain a list that can't be kept up to date and correct. You can see San Diego Zoo and Denver Zoo for examples of this. Neither pretend to try to list all of the animals.
 * I have not seen the WotWots. As far as I can tell it does not play in my country. I am also not particularly curious about it. I have done a bit of searching to see if I could find what zoo each episode was filmed at (some are already listed in the WikiPedia article), but could not find any additional zoos not already mentioned, and in fact failed to verify most of what was already there. Then again, I'm not a specialist on TV shows and movies and how to get information about them. Don Lammers (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Impersonation
I am 100% confident that this edit was not from you, although it claimed to be. I have blocked the IP address. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, first time someone tried that on me. I see that it didn't fool the bot, which still came through and signed it with the IP address since the signature wasn't real. I believe that this is the same person that was jumping around IP addresses and adding animals to zoos (same kind of ranting). The latest incarnation is CuriousWikian590 and maybe (though I don't know how to verify except by edit patterns) Tomo94. Thanks for the heads up. Don Lammers (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is certainly the person who has edited as CuriousWikian590, Mr. Curious Man, and at least 22 different IPs. I didn't know about Tomo94, but I'll look at that one and see what I think. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

JamesBWatson
I Aplogised for disruption and look what he did to the Singapore, Monarto, Adelaide and Taronga zoo articles. IP's have to edit them to and we also have rights. I plan on going to one of those zoos next year and I will need to add into wikipedia animals I saw. And articles were not made to be protected. JamesBWatson is not a member of the zoo project and only zoo project admins can protect zoo articles. Zoo Project have a law against protecting zoo articles. 122.109.243.252 (talk) 07:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not going to get into the middle of this. You are being disruptive, and you continue to be disruptive -- even your apologies sound more threatening then apologetic (yes, I have been watching). This has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT YOU ARE EDITING UNDER AN IP ADDRESS. This is all about the types of edits you are doing (unsourced), and the use of multiple addresses to edit. In addition, you are under a heavy misconception if you think that "only zoo admins can protect zoo articles". ANY admin can protect ANY article. There are no admins in WikiProject Zoo at this time, and being "in the project" confers no special status -- it only says you are intending to work on zoo articles. You are also just shooting yourself in the foot with comments like the above. "I plan on going to one of those zoos next year and I will need to add into wikipedia animals I saw" is a clear and unambiguous statement that you will continue to be disruptive, this time with original research (see WP:OR) which is not allowed on WikiPedia. Don Lammers (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I aint speaking to you unless youbget can get those zoo articles unprotected. Time you think about others that are IPs. I clearly asked him to not have this range blocked again atleast till xmas. Technically IPs are the only ones that edit the zoo articles and most others.

I'd suggest you think of whose side you're on too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.249.234 (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you dense? I believe that I have clearly declared where I stand, and it is NOT with you. I would be happy if you never spoke to me again. I have no intention of asking for the zoo articles to be unprotected so that you can go in and mangle them again by putting in unsourced material and original research. WikiPedia has rules, and you are not following them. They have been pointed out numerous times to you by several people, and you continue to ignore the rules. Don Lammers (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Dallas Zoo
Dear Donlammers,

I just received your message regarding my contributions to the Dallas Zoo article. I am kind of confused because you said that I did not add references even though I am sure I did. Let me review. First, I added the photos that I took this past Saturday. Second, I divided the existing "Exhibits" text into well defined sections;ZooNorth, Wilds of Africa and Giants of the Savanna. All I did was correct some glaring punctuation problems that already existed in the "Exhibit" section. I even deleted a claim that was not backed by any reference. The information in that section was not put there by me. However, I agree that more references are needed. Third, I did add the following sections: Awards, Conservation and Transportation. I believe I included all the necessary references. I linked to the newspaper article regarding the Awards section. I referenced and linked the Dallas Zoo in the Conservation section. As far as the Transportation section, I figured the link to DART rail was sufficient. I just wanted to clarify to be sure we understand each other. I appreciate the hard work it must take to make sure all is on the up and up. Write back soon with any suggestions. I would actually love to fix any and all errors on the Dallas Zoo article.

--Kevin1086 (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Kevin, I am dealing with a couple of recalcitrant editors elsewhere, and left the message because in the few of your edits I looked at there were no references. Let me actually go through the article -- probably tomorrow morning -- and convert inline URLs to citations and expand your newspaper citation, and see where we stand. It does need additional citations for the exhibits section, but we can probably point to the zoo site for most of those. Again sorry, I seem to have jumped to conclusions based on some other things I'm dealing with. Don Lammers (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Donlammers,

Thank you so much for helping me out with the Dallas Zoo article!! I added a History section and did the best I could with citing references. I just went to the page and I saw all of your contributions that you did today. I really appreciate it. Hey, we make a great team! That article needed some TLC. It read like an obituary. Once again, thank you very much for your help and your time. Is there anything else you think needs to be done? Please do not hesitate to ask. Kevin1086 (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You are welcome, and thank you for taking an interest in expanding the article. As coordinator for WikiProject Zoo, I watch all of the zoo articles, and when I see someone expanding an article I try to pitch in and help, in hopes of being able to move the article on up the scale. I've re-rated the article as C-class now. This article is still a bit lacking in citations for its size, and needs to be expanded by perhaps 1/3 again to qualify as B-class. I'm guessing that there has to be more information on the history out there, and adding a section on "The future" (surely there are expansion plans?) would probably suffice.Don Lammers (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Donlammers,

Well, as you can see I took your advice and added more to the History section as well as a Future Developments section with sources included. What do you think? In order for me to expand the Future Developments section I need some reliable source for the information I found. I found quite a few things but it was from a forum at www.zoochat.com and there is no telling where the individual got that information. Hopefully I can dig around some more and find some expansion or renovation plans with a reliable source to cite. Hey, good catch with Dallas Zoo Conservation Education & Science Center! I read right over the detail about it being the new entrance to the zoo but you caught it and added it to the article, so thank you. I hope that project comes to fruition! That will be awesome! I appreciate your feedback and help.Kevin1086 (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for expanding the article. It's looking quite a bit better. You are correct that ZooChat isn't exactly a reliable source for facts because we don't knoe where the information actually comes from. Personally I prefer newspaper articles even to the zoo Web site because most newspapers are considered reliable sources and articles are usually saved for quite a while now. If you can find a book on the zoo, you can use that too. Even if people can't immediately click to see the material, it can be properly cited. Don Lammers (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Donlammers,

I wanted your advice on what else should be done to raise the score within C-Class or promote the Dallas Zoo article to B-Class. I have added a lot of information and I have made sure to cite my sources. I have also gathered as much as possible for the History section of the article. I could've added another paragraph of info to History but I couldn't find any reliable source to cite, so I left it out. I have looked at zoo articles that are rated B-Class and I have found that the length of the History section as well as the amount of sources cited in the Dallas Zoo article is comparable. I appreciate all your guidance. Thank you.Kevin1086 (talk) 02:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, real life has been intervening an awful lot the last months or so. I've seen you working on the article, but haven't really paid much attention past that. I just took a quick look, and it looks to me like it's ready for a B-class review . I will try to take a closer look at it this weekend, and after that I will be able to either upgrade it or offer some advice. The only obvious item I spotted was that the article still has a gallery. Since we now have links to Commons (so readers can go see more photos), this is discouraged in articles. It's handy when the article is still really short, but this one already has quite a few pictures in the article body. See WP:Galleries for more information. Don Lammers (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That is very true about the Gallery. I went ahead and removed it. I was apprehensive about adding it in the first place. Good to know. Might be ready for B-Class? That would be great! I hope it makes the cut. Thank you for your assistance.Kevin1086 (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I just checked the page again (I know, I am an addict at this point) and noticed your changes. That is awesome that you moved the citations into columns. I could't figure out how to do that. What is the process for upgrading the class of an article? Does it have to be reviewed by a panel of editors? What do the numeric scores mean? Just out of curiosity I wanted to ask since I am new to Wikipedia and you have been so helpful. Thank you.Kevin1086 (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Assessment of articles to stub, start, C, B, and A-class are done by the wikiproject. Anyone on the project can assess an article. I started just going through and updating/reassessing stub to start, then worked my way up. There are some "guidelines" that basically show how I assess articles at WikiProject Zoo/Article requests (these are just a bit stricter than the basic WikiPedia Guidelines). Unfortunately they only go up to C-class yet. You can see the WikiPedia definitions atWikiProject Zoo/Assessment. What I try to do with B-class is get them up to "just about GA". Much of the assessment process is, of course, subjective. For GA (Good Article) and FA (Featured Article) status, the review is by editors outside the project. I have watched a bunch of such promotions (the best way to find out what's involved), and my current conclusions are that GA is as high as it's worth going. IMHO, FA is just an excuse for everyone to pick on Manual of Style issues, not actually improve the article substantively. There are links at Good articles that will point you to the GA process and to articles that are currently being assessed.
 * Not sure what you mean by "numeric scores". Do you mean the "b1", "b2", etc. in the project box? Those are just to track where the assessor thinks the current article stands in each of the 5 major areas that we care about. I usually also leave a message on the article talk page explaining my assessment, just to set expectations. If you mean something else, please clarify and I will try to answer. Don Lammers (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Great info! What I meant about numeric score is when I am viewing the Article list in say, C-Class. For example the Dallas Zoo is C-Class with a score of 586. What does that score mean? Is it a random number or does it indicate how far away the article is from the next class up? ThanksKevin1086 (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that I don't know what numbers you are talking about. I look for C-class articles at Category:C-Class zoo articles, and I don't see any numbers. Either you are looking somewhere else (in which case I'd like the URL so I can go take a look) or you have some widget turned on that I don't (and that will be much harder to figure out).

Here it is: http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=Zoo&namespace=&pagename=&quality=C-Class&importance=&score=&limit=250&offset=1&sorta=Importance&sortb=Quality When will you be reviewing the Dallas Zoo article for B-Class? Sorry...I am just full of questions. : )Kevin1086 (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I admit to having not seen that page. However, after poking around a bit, I think the relevant article explaining the score is here: Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Article selection. It looks like the score is used to determine what goes into the offline releases. It starts with a number indicating the A, B, C, etc. rating, then adds a lot of stuff that I generally haven't paid too much attention to (like how many articles link here, and how many wikiprojects are listed, and how important those projects say the article is). I guess among other things we should consider adding "importance" to our rating box, and make sure that all appropriate wikiprojects are listed (I've been trying to make sure that all zoo articles at least have WP Zoo and a wikiproject representing the location, but that's as far as I've gone).
 * I have already looked at the Dallas Zoo article. As you noticed, I have done some editing, and you can see my assessment on the talk page. It's pretty close to B, but I think there are just a few things that need to be addressed yet. I'll take another stab at it this weekend if you or someone else hasn't already made the changes. Not to worry -- we'll get it there.Don Lammers (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Don, I replied to your assessment on the Dallas Zoo Talk page back in November. I meant to put my response to your assessment on your Talk page. Please tell me what you think about the following three points. Here it is: "That is great news! I will address those suggestions. 1)The "within recent years" in ZooNorth has been in the article a very long time so that is old news, no doubt. I have no idea when those particular exhibits opened so I will do the research and then replace "within recent years" with an actual year(s). If I can't find years I will just blend it in. 2)Trivia...that is going to be kind of tricky to work those facts in elsewhere. I figured since they were backed up with a cited source that it would be acceptable. Could an exception possibly be made for Trivia sections IF indeed they do cite sources? 3)Now, the aquarium was mentioned in the article before I came along. This is just my opinion but I don't like it for the article precisely for the reason you mentioned. I have not been able to find any information to connect the two separate facilities other than they are managed by the DZS and the aquarium's website link on the Dallas Zoo's website. That's it. No history in relation to the zoo. No details. What do you think? Should we omit it all together? I will try to fix all three issues and hopefully I will luck out and find info connecting the zoo and aquarium."Kevin1086 (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I did see this. Unfortunately, between work and really a bad internet connection I've been more off-line than on. The statement about the zoo app could probably just go up under the Exhibits section. The bamboo paragraph would fit in nicely if there was a section on the landscaping at the zoo. I can't think of any better answer. As for the aquarium, maybe just leave it at something like "The zoo is managed by xyz, which also manages the abc aquarium." Don Lammers (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I have corrected those three concerns that you addressed in your assessment. Everything is as current as possible, trivia section is gone but not the information, and I thought it best to exclude the aquarium altogether after further research and consideration. I hope the article is ready for B-Class after these adjustments. Thank you.Kevin1086 (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

B-Class!!! We did it! Not to worry, I will definitely be on the lookout for more useful information to add to the article. I will also make the necessary edits to ensure the article is always up to date. Thank you for all of your help! I appreciate it and I know not all editors do. Hmmm...the Dallas World Aquarium is currently a Start-Class article and is therefore in need of some help. Perhaps we can collaborate on that article in the near future and give it a nice revamp.Kevin1086(talk) 06:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Your list of "default" zoos & aquaria
Perhaps you mean defunct? Takinzinnia (talk &bull;


 * Yes, but I hate moving articles, so, since it's just in my user space anyway, I was just waiting until it was ready to push into main space. Not sure that's the best name either. Perhaps "List of former zoos"? Don Lammers (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

OK
When will the protection expire. Basically it is only IP's that edit these articles. Time you thought about others. I'm not messaging you anything till you can get them unprotected. Think of who's side you're on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by124.169.119.240 (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Bad editing, and editing against Wikipedia rules, is worse than no editing, and at this point with your attitude, they are not likely to get unprotected soon. I have already stated that I am not on your side, and will revert any edits of yours that I spot.Don Lammers (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Same old same old I see mate ??? Zoo  Pro  13:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure seems like it. We have a few editors doing pretty good work and advancing the cause, and a couple of others doing disruptive things. I've been pretty busy in real life and have mostly just been keeping up with taking care of watchlist items, and not doing much real editing. How are things going down under? Don Lammers (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Things are going rather well and as such I am now able to return to wikipedia and assist once again. If you could give me some tasks that need doing I will happily get started on them. Zoo  Pro  04:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends a bit on what you want to work at. I was cranking through stubs and turning them into starts before being rudely interrupted first by Zhand38 and then by the IP that started this section. Zhand38 put in what seemed to be good information in many cases, but with few or no citations, and it read like a tour guide. It was all reverted, so the basic material is there if you go back a bit. That was for Cincinnati Zoo and Newport Aquarium. If you want to work on encouraging GA (I've tried to make sure that the editors know I will help if THEY nominate and act as primary), there is Zoo Basel (Lucasuvu) and Arignar Anna Zoological Park (Rasnaboy) which I think are pretty close and they have a "primary" editor that might be encouraged. If you are more inclined to infrastructure, the portal never really got quite finished. I stopped adding pointers to it pending resuscitation. Don Lammers(talk) 14:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
I was going through and I saw a photo of the front entrance, which I assume will satisfy your request for a photo for the article. Hasteur (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Please Unprotect the Zoo Article's
Are you going to get those article's unprotected, or am I going to do it myself? By requesting admin rights. Time to start thinking about others. Just about just IP Addresses edit them and they are for IPs to edit. And don't be rude and don't remove this message please.

Until you figure out what the rules are on Wikipedia, and decide to follow them, you are part of the problem, not the solution. I am not going to help get those articles unprotected (and I have said this many times in the past). You may ask for admin privileges, but you are not likely to get them. I will revert any other messages like this that you leave on MY user page.Don Lammers (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Rules say that ANYONE can edit them. Just about only IP's have edited them lately. Time to start thinking about other people who've edited them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.248.86 (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I plan to go to Singapore Zoo that's year and I MUST add in the animals I see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by122.109.248.86 (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This would be original research and is specifically AGAINST Wikipedia policy (see WP:OR). You have just clearly stated that if the article is unlocked you WILL vandalize it. This is not going to make anyone eager to unblock either you or the article.Don Lammers (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's the Deal with those Articles

 * 1) Get those articles unprotected and think about others. Rules say anyone can edit them. As in IPs not related to I.
 * 2) I request admin rights and do it myself. Plus I'll demote JBW's.
 * 3) Merge the animals to their own article. Would depend on how many there even are.
 * Think of the easiest solution What could it be. Please do not be rude and answer the questions my lord. Zookeepers of these zoos may have to add in stuff, incase you have forgotten. Once you're a grown up, you'd obey me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by122.109.245.213 (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It does not matter whether you or zookeepers add animals. If there is no way for other people to verify them besides going to the zoo, the animals cannon be added to Wikipedia articles. Rules do not say anyone can edit articles. Rules say that people who play by the rules can edit articles. COntrary to popular belief, Wikipadia is not a free for all. If you follow the rules and provide verifiable references, you can edit. If you continue to add unverifiable information, it will continue to be reverted. If you continue to edit from multiple IPs and multiple user names, that's sockpuppetry and you will be blocked. If you continue your disruptive (unverifiable) edits in the zoos, they will continue to be locked as well. Now, until you decide to act like an adult and follow the rules here, and get administrators to unblock you and unlock the articles (I am not an administrator), I will consider any further communication to be vandalism and revert it. I have wasted enough time on you, and you obviously have no intention of either learning the rules or playing by them. Good bye. Don Lammers (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Spsssss, sorry to get into this but hey IP 122, just create an account. Would that help DonLammers?208.102.209.78 (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to report suspicious activity, please do so to an admin. I am not an admin, and cannot directly do anything about anyone creating or abusing accounts. Don Lammers (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait, was that too me? 208.102.209.78 (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes it was. For now the admins have been handling the issue with IP122 (and other IPs). If he/she starts editing on the zoos it will be pretty obvious (all he does is make animal lists without citing anything, and I have the articles on my watchlist), and at that point I may step in if he isn't following the rules (like not citing what he adds), or I may not have to -- he has the attention of several admins already by jumping around IPs and creating new accounts to get around blocks. If he starts editing other articles (which according to various IP talk pages, he has), then there are other folks watching those.Don Lammers (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh well, I wasn't really reporting anything, I was just trying to help him. But now I know that he can't do anything.207.67.17.67 (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Zhand38 is Sorry
Hey Don, it's Zhand38, just wanted to say hi and tell you that you were right, all you were doing was trying to help me and I didn't listen. I read your last comment and I wanted to say that I found all the websites appropriate for citations. Sorry. Can you comment on this link, it's what I would put on the Wiki page.208.102.209.78 (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC) http://cincinnatizooandbotanicalgarden.wikia.com/wiki/Cincinnati_Zoo_and_Botanical_Garden_Wiki


 * Sorry Zhand, I'm not ignoring you. Right now I have a lot going on in real life and have barely been keeping up with checking my watched articles, let alone doing any real editing. I will take a look when I get a chance.Don Lammers(talk) 23:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I can see that you are busy. May I ask which zoo article are you discussing about?208.102.209.78 (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you mean the thread below, it's multiple articles, mostly in Australia and SE Asia. There is some discussion in my archives, some on multiple IP pages (used by the same person, and some on the admin's pages (though mostly JamesBWatson, and probably mostly archived as well). Don Lammers (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You know the The future section on the Cincy Zoo page? Well it says something about the Komodo dragon exhibit, and the what is happening to the Nocturnal House. Do you mind erasing that sentence? I got a lot in trouble for it by the zoo and after about 5 months it still is there and I feel bad. I don't mind if you don't I'm just worried. Thanks. By the way, my IP address is unblocked from anything, and I can do anything to the page, but I choose not to because I do not want into trouble so I am asking you. Thanks again, sorry and talk to you later. 208.102.209.78 (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have done this, as well as eliminated some duplication in that section. Don Lammers(talk) 18:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Awesome!! Thanks for clearing my conscious.208.102.209.78 (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, Donlammers. It would really be better not to respond to this user, who is globally blocked on all Wikipedia projects. Responding only encourages him/her to keep on evading the block via more IPs as each one becomes blocked. If the person is genuinely willing to reform then they can request an unblock via email. In the meanwhile the best thing to do is revert any message they post without responding. This is not meant to be a criticism of you, just letting you know what the situation is, in case you didn't already know.JamesBWatson (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Videos
Hi, with regard to your recent removals of video links at, your edit comment appears to give the impression that all such video links are inappropriate. That is not the current consensus of Linking to user-submitted video sites and you may think of explaining why you are removing certain links to videos off-wiki within the guidelines, particularly if less experienced contributors start edit-warring over it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My interpretation (see the section on Links normally to be avoided, though I'm not generally dogmatic about too much) is that in general these links should be avoided because of potential copyright issues (not sure if YouTube requires a plugin, since my computer pretty much has every plugin in the world installed already anyway). Just putting "authorized" in the link hardly counts, and if you want your photo/video to be used on WP, you can always upload it to Commons and explicitly authorize it. I try to be fairly explicit about this in my edit notes, and I think this is the first time it's gotten into any back and forth. I have put a note on the talk page. Hopefully this will at least start a discussion. Don Lammers (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello
I am a new member of the zoo project indenting to be an admin or the new coordinator soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronlammers (talk • contribs) 06:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

List of captive orcas
please dont delete stuff i write. its true so please leave it. for proof, go on cetacean cousins. i will put it back every time it's deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.54.239 (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether or not it is true. Wikipedia policy requires verifiability (see WP:Verify) and does NOT allow original research (anything that is only from your own personal observation -- see WP:OR). Contrary to popular belief, Wikipedia is not a free-for-all. There are rules, and your edits violate those rules. Don Lammers (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

how do you do that ?
well its not from personal observation. im putting "info from cetacean cousins". so just dont remove it. just go on cetacean cousins. it says that Ulises is dominant for a male orca and on Takara's profile on Cetacean Cousins, it says Takara is also one of the dominant orcas. how do you put the link to click on ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.54.239 (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not up to me to cite your additions. It's up to you to learn how to do citations and p-ut them in the article. Don Lammers (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

On EPiServer feedback
Okay - thanks. I am not entirely sure what you refer to as a misquoting of Gartner, as I was only trying to say that it was featured as a visionary in their Magic Quadrant which is accurate source

At any rate, I am not to argue about the distinctiveness of the company. What I can say is that it is an important software vendor in the Scandinavian countries, which can be seen from the rather extensive wiki in Swedish Episerver wiki Swedish It was also part of the English up until 2010, when for some reason someone made improper edits that caused it to be deleted.

From a comparative approach it is also peculiar that Danish software vendor Sitecore, which is notingly similar across all aspects are featuring a rather extensive wikipedia page in English Sitecore on wikipedia

I think the appropriate thing would be to have a short wiki on Episerver in English, which will likely trigger third parties to add some additional information down the road.

Thanks.


 * I'm not the one that stated you were "misquoting Gartner". That was Bwilkins. I just expanded the citations. I'm also not going to get involved in decisions about notability of corporations, as it's not really my area of expertise. My comment was only my personal impression from reading the article as it currently stands. The fact that another company has an article says nothing about either the notability of this company or, for that matter whether the other company article should be there. I note that Episerver is not listed under List of content management systems (Sitecore is). I have also taken a look at some of the links in the list, and have to say I am singularly unimpressed by ALL of the articles that I saw (and you are correct that the Sitecore article is only marginally better). In addition, I found The 100 Top Companies in the Digital Content Industry: The 2011-2012 EContent 100, which I note does not list EpiServer but does list Sitecore. However, you need to go back to the original thread and convince the other folks there, not me. Don Lammers (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Gatorama
Hi, Do you think that Gatorama is a zoo? Snowman (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to say no, that this is just a farm that happens to give tours. I could probably be persuaded otherwise. Don Lammers (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

New Zoo Article
I just created Columbian Park Zoo as part of the Wikipedia zoo project. I used your stub template but would request that you look at the HTML as I am used to citing references a little bit differently than you have in the template. I placed the zoo project on the talk page so that you can review and rate it. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be done to improve it. I think a few photographs would be nice but I don't have any access to them. --Morning277 (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Great work! Photos will be needed to get this to C-class, but for a start this is really good. The way you cite references is fine. I just prefer the bulk of the text in one place, as I find it much easier to keep track of what I have and not duplicate things. Both ways work. I added coordinates. this is a really solid start-class now. Don Lammers (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad you enjoyed it. I did not change anything on the zoo project page for this article so you may need to clean up a few things there as well. There is one more Indiana zoo article that needs created and I will work on it this week and next. Hopefully I will have all of them from Indiana going so that edits and additions can be made. --Morning277 (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Not finding much to clean up. You created an article that was a redlink, so the List of Zoos and the Indiana zoo navbox just work magically. It wasn't on any other list (in the project pages we point people to the List of zoos so that we don't have maintenance when someone creates an article). If there is something specific you think needs cleanup, you will need to point me to it. Don Lammers (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Bronx Zoo Competition
I wasn't introducing competition - the earlier version said without qualification that the Bronx Zoo is the largest metropolitan zoo in the world, and the source that's cited says that same thing. Anyone who follows the source will see that sentence and the Wikipedia article will probably be changed back. Including the information about the Toronto zoo will prevent that, as well as provide information relevant to a frequently repeated, but definitely misleading, claim about the Bronx Zoo. Afoggyday (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my point was not that you introduced competition. My point was that it's almost always better in an encyclopedia to change the text to "one of the", because statistics are always changing (# of animals particularly), and people start getting into trying to qualify everything. I'm sure it's true that Toronto zoo is larger in terms of X and Y. However, tomorrow some other zoo may also be larger (the SanDiego Zoo article once tried to say "largest in terms of membership"). It's better just to note that it's one of the largest, and not try bringing in all the other zoos that might be larger in some way (and which are not the subject of the article). Don Lammers (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Zoos template
Templates are only supposed to be used to link articles of direct, not marginal, relevance to the topic. Having the basic "zoos" overview template on every individual zoo, when it features broadly chosen links like "bear pit", "animal training", "ex-situ conservation" and "nocturnal house" that may not actually be of any functional relevance to that particular zoo, would be very much like placing an overview template about general topics in economics on every individual economist, or placing an overview template about general topics in politics on every individual politician. The links are simply too broad in scope to be useful or relevant or necessary on every single article about every individual zoo.

And at any rate, there's a conscious effort in place (see WP:TCREEP) to keep the number of templates on articles under control — some of the ones I removed it from already have four or five other navbox templates on them, which is far too many. Edmonton Valley Zoo, for example, does not need five different navboxes on it — even four is overkill and should be trimmed further, but Zoos was the only one of the five that was not clearly essential as they're currently constituted, because normally no article should ever actually have any navbox on it which doesn't itself contain a link to that same article within a list of immediately related topics. The "Zoos in particular province" template should be more than sufficient; the articles simply don't need both templates simultaneously.

And if it's really that important that the general zoos template be accessible, then the "zoos in province" templates can also be modified to provide a text link to the general zoos template if necessary. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Moving discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Zoo so that anyone else interested can follow. Don Lammers (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Durrell Wildlife Park
Hi! I think you may have been editing Durrell Wildlife Park just now. The references section has become broken. Not sure if this is due to to a change you made. Perhaps, you could take a look? I could fix it, but might undo your edits, so best you take a look yourself.Danrok (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed now! Danrok (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I spotted it. I'll stop on this for now and come back later, since you are editing too. I was starting through on animal capitalization and bringing a few thing into narrative rather than list form, but that can wait.