User talk:DrChrissy/Archive 4

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (January 2013)
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Elephant euthanasia
Hello, will you please update the status of the euthanasia decision when the decision is made? Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

See also...
Hi DrChrissy,

I see you've been putting up a lot of See alsos. I do rather abominate the things - they are cruft magnets, and on the whole one has to wonder what they are for. Either they name real and good connections between one article and another -- in which case they should be included as bluelinks in actual text in the article, along with a decent citation -- or they aren't, and they shouldn't be there. No?

As for "deception", it's an awkward (and controversial, arguably actually wrong) title as animals are not intentionally deceiving, except perhaps for a few primates (one species in particular accounts for nearly all of that...); and if we're talking trickery without conscious intent, well, we have articles on mimicry, threat, deimatic bluff, camouflage etc etc. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Chiswick Chap. I'm not exactly sure how I should respond to this.  First, you may "obiminate" the See also sections, but they exist, they are promoted by Wikipedia and many editors contribute to them.  Of course, you are entitled to your opinion.  I usually add a See also only if the article has not been linked in the main text and I believe there is a strong connection between the articles: I don't believe if the See also link is to another Wikipedia article it requires a citation - or am I wrong?


 * If there is a See also list then of course there's no citation. But as I said above, the (much) better alternative is a stated and cited connection in the article text. Why is it better? There are two solid reasons. Because it shows what the relationship is; and a pressure (from other editors, ahem) to write-and-cite helps to prevent link-spamming for dodgy purposes like driving traffic to commercially-inspired articles, which obviously deception isn't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I wrote the article because for a layperson with an interest in deception in animals, they are unlikely to look up articles on "mimicry, threat, deimatic bluff, camouflage etc etc.". which are quite technical terms and the articles sometimes do not even use the word deception. I felt that an article which encompasses all these would be informative and helpful. As for whether deception in animals is intentional or not, I think I make it clear in the introduction that most scientists (including myself) usually attribute a less advanced form of cognition. The definition I chose does not attribute any intentionality. Even the primate examples you mention rely on the primates having a theory of mind, something of which I remain to be convinced. I'm sorry you did not like the article - I thoroughly enjoyed researching and writing it. If you have further concerns, please could I suggest these are posted to the article's Talk page so that other editors will be aware of your concerns.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Mmm. Before we go there let me say one thing here. My concern is that as commonly understood, deception implies intention; and this is so uncomfortable that biologists have gone a long way to use other words to avoid the implication (yeah, we can discuss teleology on the talk page, it's fine in evo, sure); and this leads to the feeling that the article is a construction, WP:OR, a strange and misleading wiki-phrase, but it means that the article is building something that is a theory. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * P.S. (sorry to go on) - the primate is mainly H. sapiens, I mean, and as you say quite doubtfully any of the others ... as for 'not liking', you're ahead of me there ... I went for a long walk to reflect on that, and clearly the answer is, it's not a relevant concern for the article, but being soundly rooted in sources certainly is, so I've put a note on the article's talk page which I hope is clear and constructive. Happy to discuss. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Research
Hi, before adding categories to an article, could you perhaps first have a look at the cat to see what it contains? Ethogram obviously is not the kind of thing that goes into "Research", otherwise we could categorize every article in, say, the WikiProject Neuroscience as "Research". Or what about Western blot, for example? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Re yoour message on my talk page: As soon as it was clear that you didn't understand why I reverted, I explained here. Have you looked at the research cat? It's a bit of a mess and contains several inappropriate entries (but that is n ot a reason to add even more), but it is for general things like research design, the Haldane principle, and Lab notebook. It is not for every method that is used in research (like the Western blot referred to above). There's a whole separate category tree for "research methods" and perhaps ethogram could have a place there, but not in the top cat. --Randykitty (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Chickens
I didn't reply to all of your questions in regards to chicken’s intelligence because apparently the comments cannot be removed and I wanted to make sure to get my point across. I completely agree with what you say that intelligence depends of what is being tested or what questions we ask. Life on earth could be better for everyone if we only knew which questions to ask. For example: ‘is Kim kardashian gaining weight?’ – That question is not helping anyone. I have a question which might sound stupid. The question is: who should write a Wiki page on chickens – humans, or chickens? If humans will write a wiki page on chickens they’ll portray them as food. Now, if I was a chicken I would not like to have my predator write a wiki page about me. So, if chickens are not able to write, maybe a person who is concerned for their welfare should be writing their wiki page. Let’s look at this wiki sentence, for example:”More than 50 billion chickens are reared annually as a source of food, for both their meat and their eggs.” “Rear” means raised, cared for, but in order for a chicken to end up on someone plate it needed to be killed. And if someone is killed intentionally that is called murder.--Jane955 (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You raise a very good point about who should write articles, or perhaps this should be who should write aspects of articles. My own opinion is that for each of the animals we use for food, feathers or fur, there should be an article page on the animal itself, and a seperate article on uses of the animal.  So, we would have one article on "chickens" and another on "chickens as food".  These could be written by different people. It is impossible and wrong to ignore our uses of animals, but I feel that writing articles on the animals themselves rather than as a utility would raise our respect for them, simply rather than seeing them as a piece of meat in a polystyrene tray in a supermarket freezer.  Hope this helps.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

croc-gallery
yes, you're right. the gallery should be at the end of an article. but this is a species menu rather than a general gallery, that is why its at the top. :) Berkserker (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

maybe the title should be renamed or included in a general evolution section, this way we would eliminate that misconception. Berkserker (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. I really don't feel strongly about this, but it is the first page I think I have seen with so many pictures of different species.  I think Wikipedia is rather against these types of galleries, but as someone interested in animals, I think they are great! I suggested the move so that some beligerent editor did not wade in and delete the whole lot on the basis they were in the "wrong" place!  All the best__DrChrissy (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ok, thanks :) As in other pages like sea turtles, rhinos, tiger etc, it would be better to include the pictures in a species/evolution section. that was my main intent though, that the section would grow in time. I immediately put the pictures to clarify the disambiguation around the word "crocodile" since anybody reading the article may assume the article is about a single species. it is usually in favor of the larger crocs such as the nile and saltwater crocs. I wanted to point out that in fact it was a general article, that for more specific go info here are the links. when I have more time I'll try to find a solution that suits the general expectations :) Berkserker (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I made some changes to the section, what do you think :) Berkserker (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks great! Superb work!__DrChrissy (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for the great contribution to the senses section :) the article is finally getting the attention it deserves after all these years. Berkserker (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed my sandbox! Thanks
no more ethology category Othermikesmith (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Begging behavior in birds
Nice work on the article there, thank you! --j⚛e deckertalk 21:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thanks!__DrChrissy (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Old post about animal welfare
Hi DrChrissy,

I've just seen your post at Talk:Animal welfare and responded there. I thought I should let you know here since your post has been lying unanswered since March.

Yaris678 (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parthenogenesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Decapod (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Tool use by the Goffin/Tanimbar Corella?
Hey Chrissy - I notice that you're currently working on the Tool use by animals article... I was just wondering if you'd heard anything about this article, and whether it was relevant to the aforementioned article (would such object manipulation be considered tool use)? It's been reported in the news in recent weeks, so you may have read about it. Just a thought. I already added a mention of it to the Tanimbar Corella article. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. I had not heard of this article so thanks for letting me know about it.  You've raised an interesting question I have been thinking about regarding tool use, that is, should we consider animals under experimental conditions manipulating man-made aspects of the environment as tool use.  I'm not so sure we should.  Countless animal species under a multitude of conditions have been used in operant learning studies, by pressing buttons or switches, pulling chains, pushing doors, etc. but would we consider these as tool use? I think the Tanimbar Corella study falls into this category as the locks are man-made devices.  The Tool use by animals article starts with three definitions, one relating to "an object carried or maintained for future use" and another to "An object that has been modified to fit a purpose".  Whilst these are far from perfect, I think they would preclude the Corrella study.  However, it is a very interesting example of problem solving (perhaps object use) and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. (forgot to sign!)__DrChrissy (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just realized that a more relevant earlier paper by the same researchers from the Vienna Goffin Lab (yes, that's actually a thing!) was not actually mentioned in the article. This one, I think should definitely be included in there. Video here of the Goffin in question spontaneously making and using tools in order to retrieve a nut positioned outside of the mesh of its aviary... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This example was already in the article but by coincidence, I have just expanded it slightly. I do know of the laboratory - I have colleagues who have worked there!__DrChrissy (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There are worse jobs to have than 'Goffin wrangler', I think. :) You know, it wouldn't surprise me if pet cockies have been doing this sort of thing for years in people's front rooms - but that no-one considered the behaviour to be anything worth reporting or discussing. I know that this was the case when science started paying attention to those dancing cockatoos... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There are many examples of domestic pets or livestock performing tasks similar to more "sexy" animals such as chimpanzees or dolphins, but they often remain unexplored or unreported. I have two cats, one of which has learned to leap up and open door handles - presumably by observational learning and stimulus enhancement, i.e. watching me turn the door handle.  Just last night, I was watching one of those home-video programmes and there was a video of a cow that had learnt to open 2 bolts on its enclosure gate using its tongue.  It might only be 2 locks compared to the 5 of the cockatoos, but it is still quite impressive.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A few years ago, I remember someone once saying on a parrot forum that their macaw had figured out how to put a key in a padlock and turn it, in order to escape from its cage. Originally the owner had (IIRC) just left the key hanging by a string from the cage door for convenience, figuring that the bird would never be able to understand the concept of taking that and using it to open the lock... No video, but it wouldn't surprise me if it happened just like the person said. Also, I really do hope that I live long enough to see a pet parrot opening up a combination lock. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Knowing the curiosity of parrots, I wouldn't be surprised by that. I imagine the parrot could learn the task by itself using trial-and-error, or by using observational learning.  As for a combination lock, that could be a different matter.  If the parrot was to open it in the same way as humans, it would require number or pattern recognition before manipulation.  It would also raise in my mind the possibility of other senses being used.  Many locks make a slightly different click when the correct number is engaged.  The parrot might be able to hear this or feel it with its tongue.  Would be an interesting experiment to design controls for!__DrChrissy (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Tool use in animals
Perhaps some material from Nest-building in primates could be summarised and added as an example of tool use by primates. The orang nest is delightfully well-equipped! AshLin (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for this. It was my intention to add nest construction in the primates section (and others) at a future date, although nest construction as an example of tool use is contested by some.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kiwi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rhea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Animal alternative testing
Hi chrissy, I am still learning my way with the wiki tools, I hope I did not upset you too much and got it right now best frBusquet.francois (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Animal alternative testing
Hi chrissy, I am still learning my way with the wiki tools, I hope I did not upset you too much and got it right now best frBusquet.francois (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't worry, you have not upset me in the slightest - we all had to start from the beginning. I'm still learning something new every day about editing on here.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

A couple of things
I pointed you to m:Wiki Project Med higher up this page. You seem to be a person of better than ordinary sense, so I thought I'd try again and see if membership might interest you.

Also, I noticed on Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Recent_changes a bit of activity on Alternatives to animal testing. Whenever I see an article being worked on by you I feel a bit more secure about this project being in good hands. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Very kind words indeed - much appreciated. I will consider membership of the project although I am not sure how much I will be able to contribute as most of my experience is with (non-human) animals.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's all medicine in my opinion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Elephant
Please add in the page number for the new source. LittleJerry (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Your recent editing history at Elephant shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ged UK  11:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Ged UK. I was aware this accusation might be made, however, I have had problems with this editor before.  They seem to think they have ownership of the page and will not allow edits to be made which they consider challenging to the article.  The editor rarely uses the edit review but simply reverts - this has got so frustrating that in the past I have refused to work on the article.  Notwithstanding this, I have recently been discussing the edit on the Talk page so I am not sure why I am accused of an edit war at this moment.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Whiskers
Hello. I didn't notice until after I had made some changes that you had already been working extensively in Whiskers. I treated Whisking in animals as though it was a short amount of text entered from scratch by someone who didn't realize the topic was already covered in Whiskers, and redirected the shorter article to the longer one, after copying in some of the information from it.

If you weren't planning to expand Whisking in animals, then it still seems to me that it didn't need to be freestanding and that Whiskers is sufficient. However, if you were planning to expand Whisking in animals, then by all means revert my changes and accept my apology for my premature meddling. By the way, I turned the Whisking page, which previously redirected to Whisk, into a disambiguation page with a link that currently points to Whiskers. If you restore Whisking in animals to a full-fledged article, then that link on the disambiguation page ought to point there instead. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. I have always intended to make Whisking in animals a more comprehensive article - I got called away before I could expand it. No problem about the changes you made - considering the brevity of what I uploaded I might have done the same, but please can you restore Whisking in animals so that I can expand the article.  Check back in a few days and if we think it should be a sub-section of Whiskers then OK. __DrChrissy (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * corrected typo__DrChrissy (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Animal welfare
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.16.57 (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Late to the party
Hi DrChrissy, sorry to be late to the party, but I commented in your support over on the drama board. Too damn many dramas around wiki lately. Chin up! Feel free to post a quiet diff on my page if you run into troubles like this in the future, I'm usually able to find a posse to gallop over and assist. Montanabw (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for the comment and offer - I will remember that for the future.  I found it an amazing experience to encounter someone like that.  I thought initially it was just me and my edits being targetted but when the IP turned on other administrators I was absolutely staggered at the lack of civility and outright lying.  No harm done here, I've learned a lesson that keeping calm and civil on WP counts for a lot.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

OMG
Cripes, you're right, although I can't believe my eyes! Who would write such a title, which editor/referee did not see this, and which desk editor/corrector at Elsevier let this go through? Sorry about the revert, I Googled and saw it pop up in its previous version, so I thought you had just not corrected everything the IP had done. Should have checked better. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I just notice the authors are from Down Under, so perhaps this is an Aussie thing, in which case I withdraw my previous comment addressed to the authors/editors/etc... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No Probs. I agree it is a wierd mixture and knowing one of the authors, I suspect it was an editorial decision forced upon them! I have seen both an "s" and "z" used in "organisation" when citing this article and had to go to the original source to clarify. All the best. __DrChrissy (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Water Rail
I was surprised to see your rather prickly message this morning. I had added a link to the caption, which I thought solved the problem, so I removed the tag. Now, I may have been wrong, but I was acting in what I thought was good faith. and I was astonished that you saw it as a criticism of your edit.

I have changed your good faith edit to the egg caption back. AS I understand Mos for captions, you do not state the obvious in a caption, so it's assumed that a picture of a bird on the Water Rail page is that species unless otherwise stated, and an egg is a Water Rail egg. If you feel this is another perceived attack on your good faith or competence, please revert it back, life's too short to edit war over a couple of words. Cheers,  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, I've just noticed the September 2013 message above, please feel free to revert my egg caption edit, it's not worth a squabble  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. I agree it's not worth a squabble over a couple of words.  Both these problems seem to be an issue about MOS and whether something is obvious.  If we are not to state the obvious, it seems to me rather obvious that the image is an egg so perhaps it should not have a caption at all (light-hearted comment)!  More seriously, I have looked at randomly selected bird pages with images of eggs.  It seems that the majority (small sample size!) do state the species of the egg e.g. "Emu egg", however, I accept that others do not.  The first problem is that although I am an experienced biologist, I did not know what a "nominate subspecies" is.  I had to research what the term meant so I placed a clarification tag on the caption in the hope that someone more experienced than me could edit this.  But I then found out later that the species was actually named in the article so edited the caption for lay readers and non-taxonomists such as myself.  I left the message on your talk page because my clarification tag was removed with no explanation whatsoever.  I had spent several minutes trying to improve a wikipedia article only to have this effort reverted without explanation.  As you said, not worth a squabble.  Keep up the good work.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if my original post seemed a bit bitey; I accept that I should have left an edit summary, but I sometimes forget. I think, in fairness, that I didn't just revert your edit, I made a change and removed the tag because i thought I'd solved the problem as I saw it. At FA, where you would expect better adherence to MoS, I think that the majority don't have the species for eggs. I tried to think of some way to flesh out the egg caption, but difficult to know what to put that isn't just telling you what you are seeing.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  18:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted and thank you for that. I take your point that FAs are probably more adherent to MoS of captions - I guess it is simply that, in my own humble opinion, this aspect of caption style is innappropriate.  Captions, I feel, should be self-contained and informative, without being overly long.  However, I respect the views of other editors and if this "do not state the obvious" is the convention, then I shall have to learn to live with it, hence I have not edited the caption again.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Cobthorn Trust
I've removed the tag. I'll be honest, I think I was a bit harsh to have tagged it in the first place. It's a pretty good article, within the limitations of the topic. Deb (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Mouse tail
I've been looking for references about the use of the tail for balance but I can't access the two I've found that look useful. Would you happen to have institutional access to this and/or this? Richerman   (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for your very interesting recent edits. I do have institutional access but I can not retrieve the first of these - possibly my institute does not subscribe to this or I am trying to access it incorrectly.  I also can not retrieve the second - possibly due to its age (1925) it has not been scanned.  I've conducted a search on various functions of the mouse tail and it reminded me about tail rattling - e.g. see here  and here
 * That's a shame but I've since managed to source some stuff on the tail from google books and added it, but nothing from a reliable source about using it for balance when climbing - although that's obviously of if its main functions. Interestingly, it does talk about tail rattling in the one I used here and they concluded it was a form of aggression. I removed some uncited stuff about the tail earlier but thought I should find some sources and put something back in as the question of what the tail is for seems to crop up a lot on the internet. The answer is always that its for balance but nobody ever seems to realise that its also for thermoregulation. I did work as a university animal technician for almost 40 years but now that I have retired from that I have more time to edit but don't have the institutional access any more. Incidentally, the reason I didn't mention ears for thermoregulation is that it wasn't in the source I used, although they obviously have a role. Richerman    (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think tail-rattling is a little complex and we might need to present a balanced view here. Whenever we try to relate a behaviour to dominance, it always depends on how dominance is measured.  It is usually based on aggression (because this is convenient), but dominance and aggression are different. My own feeling is that tail-rattling IS related to dominance, although researchers disputing this may not have measured the iologically significant variable, e.g. do they ever measure noise or the intensity of seismic vibration produced by tail-rattling.  I'll have a look at the Wiley publication tomorrow.  I've had this problem in the past but forgotten how I overcame it.__DrChrissy (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Your query at Talk:Redback spider
The answer is yes :) WP:MEDRS explains how WP:V applies to human health and medical content, in the same way that WP:RS explains how WP:V applies to non-medical, non-health-related content.  MEDRS specifically addresses the problem that the laypress frequently gets it wrong.  Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches may help you understand how to apply MEDRS.  On the other hand, since you mostly edit about animals, I'm not sure how applicable MEDRS will be for you-- in the case of the spider, MEDRS came in to play because human health (spider bites) was discussed.  By the way, if you have a journal source and a laypress source discussing that journal source, you can combine them in the cite journal template by using the parameters, laysource, layurl, and laydate.  Here's a sample of how that's done:

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Tripoding for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tripoding is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Tripoding until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have edited the article fairly savagely, in a desperate attempt to get it kept. Voting is currently running 3 to 1 in favour of deletion, partly because people don't like the article title. If you can add more relevant material backed by reliable (book or journal) sources, that would be great. Also, I deleted some images of squirrels and monkeys. If you have reliable sources supporting tripoding among those animals, please add it (and if so, put the relevant images back). An image of a monitor lizard tripoding would also be good. -- 101.119.14.240 (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * And it would help if you weighed in on the AfD discussion. -- 101.119.15.209 (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for the heads-up on this.  I have written comments to the deletion page.  I agree with your edits and thanks for the time you took with these.  I would like to replace some of the text and images that have been removed, however, I think I will let the current discussion of whether the article should be deleted run its course.  I spent a long time looking for a picture in Wikicommons of a monitor tripoding, but I could not find one - it would be an image with great impact.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Your stuff was good, but it might have provided some ammunition to the deletionists. If the article is kept, most of it should probably go back. But you see that even with multiple rock-solid references, the deletionists want to kill the article. -- 101.119.15.220 (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes I do see that. ....I sometimes wonder about the motivations of some editors.  There is so much more on Wikipedia to worry about.  Thanks for the support. __DrChrissy (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sheesh, what a waste of your time! I voted to keep.  Good luck there!   Montanabw (talk) 07:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)