User talk:Elmidae/Archive 11

Opinion?
Hi, I saw your cleanup tag on tube zither and agree, it will happen. This article was a long time in the making, until I got sick of working on it. Can you tell me your impression of it? Do I need to chop it down smaller? Jacqke (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I fixed the malformatted references and removed tag.Jacqke (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, it's an impressive article with all the trimmings - I can't see any obvious areas that would require improvement :) One thing - there's a fair few links to Wordpress blogs in the references, which do have a tendency to flare up like a Christmas tree if you have one of those scripts enabled that highlight "generally unreliable" sources; as in, blogs generally do not make great encyclopedic references. So that might become a point of criticism, but I appreciate that this kind of material may not be easy to find in more mainstream sources. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Stirling engine Other developments
I don't understand. It's a new type of engine, very different from the alpha, beta, gamma types. Because on these types of engines, a volume of gas is used in all four phases of the Stirling cycle. Whereas on my new type of engine, these four volumes of gas are transferred from chamber to chamber to undergo the four operations of the Stirling cycle.Using an exchanger instead of a regenerator is a completely different approach. It's quite an evolution of the Stirling engine. Of course I hope that the new type of engine will be developed, but for this to happen a commercial company must be interested in the subject. Wikipedia is not an opening of knowledge as I thought. You have purely removed the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normandajc (talk • contribs) 16:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is NOT a platform to generate interest. We merely document what the world has already taken an interest in, as demonstrated by reliable, independent coverage. As soon as multiple unconnected Someone Elses have written and published something about a subject, we can cover it; not before. That is Wikipedia's notability concept. In short, we don't rustle up the interest, we document it once there IS interest. Which does not yet appear to be the case here. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Black marlin - Restored Hemingway quote
I re-posted the Hemingway quote from his 1937 novel To Have and Have Not. Do literary references and quotes relating directly to subject matter violate Wiki Rules? --Lord Such&#38;Such (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, quotes are fine - if they are suitable at the current article state! The point of the article is to give an overview of the species, starting with description and distribution, then taxonomy, usually followed by ecology and human use, conservation assessments, and cultural significance. Once these basics are covered, we can add frills - local names, appearances in popular culture, and quotes. With black marlin we are nowhere near yet the state where the article needs a big, dominating literature quote of peripheral importance. That's like creating a stub on a notable politician and then, before the biographical and career material is covered, putting in half a page of song lyrics where they are mentioned by name once. In short, it's an issue of due weight at this stage of the article. Please leave this out until the rest of the article can support it. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you can show the passage from due weight, which you offered as defense for deleting the Hemingway quote, that supports your position. None such is apparent. The quote is indubitably apropos, by any standard, and not as you assert "a big, dominating literature quote of peripheral importance." Perhaps it will stimulate interest (perhaps your own interest) in providing what you consider "the basics" for the article.

Your use of the word "frill" with respect to the passage from a Nobel Laureate in Literature, which I believe adds a engaging dimension to this article (in a 116 words), is inappropriate. Please assume Good Faith.--Lord Such&#38;Such (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * well, I disagree that the quote is appropriate for such a short article. If you will, propose it on the talk page and we'll see what others think about it. BTW, you putting extra effort into taking offence at the word "frill" does strengthen my impression that you don't understand the issue of article balance; a quote from a joint travelogue by Einstein, Eisenhower, and Gandi would be a frill in this context - a late-stage optional extra that could be added after the basics are taken care of. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The Black marlin article - and the quote you find offensive - remained on the page for six months without being molested, enjoying over 200 visits to the site per day. It seems that you, not I, need to defend your persistent removal of the quote.

By the way, I noticed you just removed the following exchange from your talk page, a note from Proteus last March:

Humpback Whale

''I noticed you undid my addition of the reference to Star Trek IV as trivial - unfortunately that maybe your opinion and hence I have undone the edit. Star Trek is a major motion picture series which has a large fan base and for it to devote a large part of the movie to the potential extinction of this species is IMHO not trivial! Proteus (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

...sorry, I don't have the stamina to get into the inevitable edit war with another fanboy ramming their favourite work of fiction into articles. I'll leave it to someone else to undo.'' --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

--Lord Such&#38;Such (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * it's called "archiving", dipshit. If your intention is to become another 'fanboy' so annoying that I have to start ignoring you, you have another think coming. Stay off my talk page from now on and confine your petty attempts at sandbox fighting to the article talk page. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Ronaldo3401
I have already reported him as a possible sockpuppet of Alvrix3108. He recently tried to make a WP:BROTHER excuse on my Talk page. Just thought I’d inform you. Jalen Folf  (talk)  18:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We might still have to drop a note at 3RR if he keeps it up with the episode redirects, as a short-term solution. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

*Bare* minimum
Hi, I'm trying to sort out a bunch of circular redirects for List of female scientists before the 20th century. You just undid my edits, saying that it didn't meet the bare minimum. I wholly agree that it's slim for a stub, but I'm at a loss for what else to do. I'm not the author of the pages and I see the one sentence description as being better than several articles that simply link to that list (from that list). They were all created by the same user. Should I nominate them for deletion instead? There is very little information about these people available on the internet, just a couple of articles/books that repeat the same information again and again (how little we do know about women in science in the medieval times!). Thanks in advance for your advice. User:Karitxa (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing with stubs is that they are intended to be the basis for a full article somewhere down the line. If the source situation is really so restricted that there is just this single source, with very little information, then it is clear that the stub will never be expanded, and the subject is better treated within a larger article. Hence these minimum coverage rules.
 * If there is not enough material to sustain an article or even a stub, then I would just remove the circular link at List of female scientists before the 20th century but leave the redirect in place. The main function of redirects is, after all, that someone who types the name into the search bar can come to some reasonably related material - which here is the list article, and that at least has a single reference for the entry. But that single reference is not enough to justify a standalone article. - Sotira (physician) seems to just make a viable minimum stub since we have the required "multiple" (well, two) references that deal with slightly different aspects. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Squala Orphan
Hi, I saw you recently reviewed Squala Orphan as an article that could be in mainspace. However it has been pointed out on Discord that from the second paragraph onwards its an copy of Guru (rapper). I would like to let you know that I'll be moving it back to draftspace unless you have serious objections.  Asartea  Talk  undefined  Contribs  15:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oy. I remember vaguely wondering about that and assuming it was another artist alias. Clearly not a good assumption :p Thanks for following up. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Help/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tzahi_(Zack)_Weisfeld — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.237.17 (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"Beautiful" squirrels
Hi there Elmidae. Thanks your good-faith edit on Irrawaddy squirrel: where you undid my revision 992071018: "let's keep it NPOV please". Actually, the epithet "Beautiful" is not my opinion, it's the term used to refer to the group of squirrels in the genus Callosciurus! 🤣 --Pakbelang (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * oops! I was not aware of that :) Hence the quotation marks, I see. Please feel free to reinstate; I see the other species in the genus all got the moniker as well. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, no worries! --Pakbelang (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Undeleting a page
Hi, you proposed this AFD Discussion. Recently there was a lot of news surrounding Naum Koen.

New coverage since the deletion:
 * apparently he holds an Israeli citizenship and his original name is Nachshon Nachshonov, which he changed few years ago in the past his name appeared in a lawsuit filed by a diamond dealer against the Diamond Exchange in Ramat Gan.
 * There is lots of coverage of him being the broker for the deal selling 50% of Jerusalem FC to a Sheikh in UAE
 * According to multiple articles he is the founder and financial backer of the Jewish Community Center in Dubai.
 * His bid on Israir airlines

P.S. I also see there is quite a lot of coverage mentioning him in Hebrew press when searching for "נאום כהן".

I have saved the original deleted page in my user space here.

Do you think there is now enough notability now to bring back the page? Shemtovca (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * honestly, can't tell. That was a complex AfD discussion, and I couldn't say how it would play out with new sources. But good faith recreation of an article is always an option if the source situation is perceived as having changed sufficiently. I would suggest you try recreating the page, with the new sources, and put a note to that effect into the edit summary as well as on the talk page (also feel free to link here), and we'll see how it goes. Worst case is another AfD, which is a good source assessment forum. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you for your response and advice. Shemtovca (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello ,



It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to and  who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to, , and who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
 * Year in review

has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
 * Reviewer of the Year

As a special recognition and thank you has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
 * NPP Technical Achievement Award

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! Starzoner (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Acca sellowiana
Hi. You have reviewed my edits in the past. I wanted to ask if you know how to rename an article. I am trying to do that for the article Acca sellowiana - see the talk page for an explanation. thanks PametUGlavu (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * done - usually you'd just move it, but page mover rights are needed if you want to swap titles between an article and a redirect. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Album Notability
Hi! You recently undid my revisions to the Put Strength in the Final Blow, which I understand, but I'd like to ask why another one of their albums such as The World (U.S. Bombs album) hasn't been deleted. Thanks!  SnazzyInfinity (chat? • what I've done) 18:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi ,, can you see this article History of Baghdad 1831-1917,,, Thank you,, Hamaredha (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

I wish you a prosperous 2021! Starzoner (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Allium paniculatum subspecies
http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:102443-3

This page has multiple synonyms. Where should the synonyms redirect to? Starzoner (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * we shouldn't have a separate article for the subspecies at all - generally subspecies are treated in the species article, unless there is an unusually large amount to say about the subspecies (e.g. Asiatic lion), and that apparently is not the case here. So all of these should be redirecting to the species article, Allium paniculatum: subspecies, synonyms for the species, and synonyms for the subspecies. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Pandanus andamanensis
Regarding this, when I search on POWO, I screwed up, and get a completely different species. What is going on? Starzoner (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you did to end up there - where did the species name come from? Are you sure this shouldn't be Pandanus andamanensium (which itself is a synonym for Pandanus leram? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I just pasted Pandanus andamanensis into POWO and I got the entirely unrelated species. This was http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/. Starzoner (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that's just an artifact of fuzzy search term matching. Can't find the species in any reference list; I suspect it's a misspelling of "andamanensium", and as such should be redirected to Pandanus dubius. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * anyways, I fixed it. Starzoner (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Milankovich's theory
I've closed Articles for deletion/Milankovich's theory revisited and moved the bit to be merged to Milankovich's theory. Good luck! - The Bushranger One ping only 18:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Much obliged! -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Cheetah
Where is the source which say Cheetah is native to Iran? I don't see any. Sources only say that cheetah was distributed to Iran. TolWol56 (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheetah. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It says that the animal originated in Africa and later went to other areas, ranging from the Arabian world to India. But it lost its presence in these parts of the world due to hunting and now found in Iran. The word we are using is "native" and it is problematic because "native" generally means "indigenous", "originated in a particular place", etc. and the sentence is not supported by source either. Can we use a better word than "native"? "Resident" or "resides in", might be better. TolWol56 (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * not sure where you get that interpretation from, but unless it is specifically stated that a species was artifically introduced to a location by humans (which is not the case here, and you won't find any sources that say so), the description "native" is correct. Cheetahs have been present in Iran from pre-human times; that makes it part of their native range. And it doesn't even depend on human presence - by your definition, no human population could ever be called "native" to any place except east-central Africa... -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And since you seem to be aware of Asiatic cheetah and all the sources therein, I really don't know what you are arguing about here. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Haggard Edit
Thanks for the edit removing section on how some of Haggard's own writing may support the idea that he was not racist. Here's what I agree with: that the intro sentence was inappropriate -- "However, Rider's own writing at times appears to bely claims of racism." -- as it was an opinion without any cited source.

Here are a few questions -- some of them because I'm a new user: 1) What does "rv" mean? The only thing I could dig up as possible is revert / vandalism, which doesn't make sense based on what I've read of that definition. 2) What does "OR" mean in this context? 3) How could the primary sources I used (quotes from Haggard himself) be appropriately used in this context / theme in your mind?

Thanks!


 * Hi, excuse the jargon - lots of abbreviations sneak in :) "rv" was just meant to be a shorthand for "revert", I don't think there's an official shorthand (although "rv/v" is often used for reverting vandalism, as you say). WP:OR is kinda in general use, and refers to original research - i.e., something that the editor has come up with themselves, or at least something that is presented as a personal observation or conclusion.


 * I agree with you that Haggard frequently presents his non-European protagonists in what we might call an egalitarian way, but to be added to the article, that needs to be something that someone else expressly concluded and published - not you or me. Some piece of critical writing or literature analysis would be the best type of source for this. As for Haggard's own writing, I'd say what we could use is if he had specifically commented on this topic at some point (as in, commenting on his own writing and how he saw these protagonists), but again, it would have to be an explicit commentary, not an interpretation we make of the source material itself. - By the way, please remember to sign your comments on talk pages, using four tildes, thus: ~ . This will attach a time stamp and signature. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks -- this feedback helps. --Eachthighearna (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion: Japanese White
On my article Japanese White, you marked it for deletion, saying "not being recognized by any breeders association presumably indicates that we should not have an article about it." From this, I am getting that breeds not recognized by the American Rabbit Breeders Association or the British Rabbit Council shouldn't have there own Wikipedia page. One thing I have thought of is to create a page that tells about the breeds, and redirects would be created to link the breeds to that page (for example, Toyota Noah MU Concept links to Toyota concept vehicles (2010–2019), so Japanese White would link to the communal page for rabbits breeds not recognized by those 2 groups. Please give me feedback on that idea. Thanks! DestinationFearFan (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't really know. I am going off the usual procedure we use for dog breeds, of which there are so many ill-defined ones that we had to start imposing a criterion of "officially recognized by the big associations" to deal with the flood of badly sourced stubs. I don't know what the consensus is for rabbit breeds, that's why I asked about it in the AfD. Going off List of rabbit breeds, I'm getting the impression that was intended to be a list of blue-linked entries only (i.e., only those that have separate articles) but it has started to get fuzzy at the edges - there's several entries at the bottom that are redlinks, and are not officially recognized. - So maybe there's room for a list of unrecognized breeds? You might just give it a go. Asking for some input at Talk:List of rabbit breeds might also be a good idea. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your feedback and opinion! I appreciate it. DestinationFearFan (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I have found some pages that aren't recognized by the ARBA or the BRC (Altex rabbit, Armenian Marder, Bauscat rabbit, Blanc de Popielno, and some other ones). Based on this, would my article Japanese White be helpful, or is it still nominated for deletion? I hope we can keep it, but its up to you. DestinationFearFan (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting - that would indicate we don't enforce that condition for rabbits. OR, nobody has bothered to check recently. I would suggest you add the above comment to the AfD discussion; at this point it's not up to me but to all who wish to comment, so more information is good! -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks again! DestinationFearFan (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Stirling Engine Free Piston Animation
Hi, I made a contribution with permission from the copyright owner, but I'm not sure about why it was classified as spam. I thought the design details would be interesting as a real-world example of a free-piston machine in production. Based on your comment below about Stirling Engine and documenting "what the world has already taken an interest in", here is an example of LNG Industry Magazine covering the product/design: https://www.qnergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/LngIndustryQnergy.pdf. Is there any changes you would like made to the contribution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBaczuk (talk • contribs) 16:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , sorry about the spam bit, that was a bit harsh - I was cleaning up after a shark image spammer and kind of in the swing :[ The main issue is that is likely not an image you can use on Wikipedia because it is not correctly licensed. You uploaded it on Commons as "own work"; that's apparently untrue, as you are not the copyright holder. If there is explicit permission from the actual creator/owner, then they will have to assert so by direct communication with Commons (there's a template option for that). Also, be sure that you or they are aware what licensing under CC BY-SA 4.0 actually means: anybody will be free to reuse, adapt and modify the image for any purpose whatsoever, including commercial. That may not be what you had in mind. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I just checked and they don't want to grant that license, thanks for your patience in working with me on this, I've not contributed hardly at all on Wikipedia (though I use it plenty).
 * in that case, I would ask you to go to the page on Commons (here) and nominate the image for deletion, so that it doesn't stay around under the wrong license and possibly gets used by someone else. You can do that by using the "Nominate for deletion" link (left sidebar, bottom entry under "Tools") and clarifying in the comment that you are the uploader and that you wish to remove the image due to the licensing situation. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
Dear Elmidae thank you for taking care of the page about Stefano Fantoni. I am new to Wikipedia. I have seen that you put a tag about the Lead and the Plot being too long. In the meanwhile several other users have modified the article reducing its length. Do you think that the two tags can be removed now? Best regards Rfantoni (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Lead seems good to me now. I also removed the "plot too long" tag, which didn't make sense in the first place - that's meant for works of fiction with plot summaries, not biographies! Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

A bit of an explanation I can give you
That tag with the CSD was meant to just simply remove all the IP addressed. When the page was restored, the act also restored an IP edit that created the page pure hoaxes and was previously deleted, hence why I tagged it there. As for mass creating the blank userpages, I kept them there as I rather start stuff in my userpage and move it to draft or mainspace. It was never meant to attempting to usurp another's creation. Starzoner (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it's hard to take serious any explanation for why pre-generating then renaming an empty stub is more useful, in any respect, than starting a new draft from scratch (indeed it's a little more work). And then doing it 1k+ times! Anyway, I suggest not carrying on with that, now that it has drawn criticism. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Hee hee. I absolutely plan to get some mileage out of that one... -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Light on the Ichthyology Categories
Hi, Hope you are well, I see that you undid some of my category creations. I would like to undo what you did to Betta albimarginata by removing "Taxa named by Ng Peter Kee Lin". Mr Ng is a Betta specialist and  by the Category last count, he had named eleven species not including albimarginata. He even has his own page. There seems to be some question how many species you must name to get a category that does not show  up in red. Any help in that direction would be most helpful. Thanks for helping me make Wikipedia better and more informative. Phil Fish (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * the discussion at the wikiproject is probably the best location to sort out this issue. If the scientist is notable enough to have their own article and there are more than a handful of species that would go into the category, then I think it is well justified; sorry if I reverted something like that. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to clear that with you! I feel that if I want to know the  information, then other people probably do as well. I'll continue on with my additions and thanks for all the feedback.Phil Fish (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Names
Actually, the anon IP was correct. We use the IOC names for bird articles on Wikipedia, so the updates in the latest version of the IOC list — blue-billed teal in place of Hottentot teal and fynbos buttonquail instead of Hottentot buttonquail is correct. Here's the link that shows these updates. I'm going to change them again in the List of birds of Madagascar article, and hope you won't be rolling me back too! ;) Please ping me if you have any questions. MeegsC (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * oops - small sample bias on my part. The ones I checked were of this type: - where the editor changed the name of a cited source inside a citation template; plus a couple of this type, where they removed correctly applied "offensive" terms. Whereas the plain list changes were of course correct. My bad, and one reason why I don't usually go near mass rollback. Will revert and then clean up manually. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * When a "list of birds of ___" article states that its taxonomy (which includes common names) is from a source other than IOC, it's wrong to change from those names to the IOC names. You could add a note saying that IOC calls the bird "xxx", with a citation of course. The lists in which I reverted the changes of Hottentot to blue-billed teal cite Clements. I expect the Clements team to make the change themselves in the next (overdue) update, and I will fix the lists at that time. Craigthebirder (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for checking! -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Barnahus stub
I have now updated a page that you marked as a stub a few years ago, Barnahus, and was wondering if you'd be willing to take another look and un-stub it, if it's ready for that step. Thanks in advance. --Hipersons (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * definitely no longer a stub at that length! It may still be a bit heavy on the primary references, so I'd leave that one in for the time being in the hope that further secondary coverage will be added. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for removing the stub status back in March. I have now also done some work to add additional sources, if you have some time to take a look. There are a number of peer-reviewed journal articles, and several articles from mainstream media around Europe. To give a taste of how widely some of the other cited materials have been reviewed, I give an example of reference number 2, open the full PDF on page two to see the number and diversity of the peer reviewers. This resource was then endorsed, see reference 5, by the organisation responsible for monitoring the transposition by national governments of one of the international treaties that applies to Barnahus in Europe (Lanzarote Convention). The publishers of reference 2 and 5 are separate organisations and did not collaborate on reference 2, as they are not listed on the peer review page. In this same spirit, there are also several reports or conclusions from various national or international committees wherein they analyse their own or another country's work with child protection, and also several other publications with substantial peer review lists. Many thanks in advance. --Hipersons (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * impressive job. I'm sure that can be detagged now. Thanks for your work! -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

remove external link in text
Hi.

I was just wondering why you removed the external link from the Imperial woodpecker page. VertNet is an enormously important scientific resource, but it somehow does not yet have a wikipedia page, so I thought including a link was important.

Did this violate some wikipedia standard? I admit that I do not know most of these. Should I instead put the link under External links?

Thanks for any advice. Wiki.phylo (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, we try to avoid direct links to outside sources in the text body itself. The reference that is attached to that statement already contains a link to VertNet, and this placement (inside references) is how external links are by preference provided. It seems like the reader would easily get to the site through that reference, and no extra link would is necessary. - Maybe consider setting up a short article on VertNet, though? As an NSF-funded project with at least two peer-reviewed description papers (that I can see), it's certainly a candidate for its own article. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the feedback.

I feel like a link to the VertNet homepage (providing an overview of the database) is useful in itself (in addition to the result of a search, which is currently on the page). But it sounds like that is frowned upon so I acquiesce.

I instead added a citation for the VertNet publication itself.

Thanks again for your advice; I don't really know what I'm doing! Wiki.phylo (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Blood pheasant
Hey! Did you see the 7,600+ bytes added to this page a few hours ago? Some of this consists of redundant hyphens, and I think that much of this was copy-pasted from a blog, but am not sure. Please have a look. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * looks like the copyvio report is for an older part of the article that is now mirrored on that blog (so it's a circular flag). The newly added stuff seems to have been freshly composed from the sources given, as far as I can tell. My guess is the hyphens are an artifact from writing this on a word processor with automated hyphenation and then straight pasting. Crappy writing though... I'm going to kick that into shape a little now. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Ostrich
Hello there,

I'm sorry if I have added an unnecessary edit to this page. I was doing this as an assignment for a college course, and I have put in the effort to edit such information. It would have been so nice of you to ask me to take it off the page myself, and I would have done it so politely... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoon1588 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Replied on talk page. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

removing "over-referencing"
Re: your revision of the Lucille Thornburgh article, removing "over-referencing": I am a editor who often writes about underrepresented groups and topics, such as women. In order to ensure that all statements I make in an article are verifiable, I cite every sentence that makes a factual claim. The Citation overkill page does not list this as a harmful practice, and in fact, the Citation underkill page suggests that citing all factual statements is a valid choice. Please let me know what criteria you used to justify removing the "over-referencing" in this article; if there is no such criteria, please do not remove valid references from articles in the future. Skvader (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ("citation overkill" is about a different issue - piling on multiple (generally weak) citations when one or a few good ones will do.) There is no policy or guideline that explicitly speaks against sourcing half a dozen sentences in sequence to the same source, as you seem to like to do; the only crucial criterion to consider here is really text-source integrity, and as long as that is maintained, there is nothing that prevents you from going overboard. It is however near universal practice to bundle multiple instances of the same inline cite in direct sequence into a single instance at the end of the section/paragraph, for the reader's sake. A good general consideration is not to indulge in anything that would be chucked out of a Good or Featured Article, and that would be one of the first things to go. But, as I said, I can't force you. Feel free to reinstate, but don't be surprised if the next editor to happen by does the exact same thing as me (and I will certainly continue to do this by default, too). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Eastern Rosella
I actually agree that removing the whole "pets" section on the eastern rosella page is the right thing to do, so I've thanked you for that. I would have done that myself but assumed (me being new to wiki editing) someone would get annoyed and revert it. It doesn't need to be there, it's based on opinions and very biased, uneducated, unscientific and self-interested ones at that. So - thanks. Leafhopper123 (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * but please keep in mind that one unsourced statement is as unverifiable as the next - whether it comes from a random person or an expert. If you wish to add material to the article, it MUST be sourced. I have therefore reverted your newer addition as well . I am aware that the short paragraph currently in the section is unreferenced as well - I haven't removed it in the hopes that someone might still provide the source. But that doesn't mean that new, unreferenced text can be considered an improvement. Note that there's no requirement for the sourcing to consist of scientific studies - a popular book on parrot-keeping, or failing that a reputable website, would do nicely. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Arapaima gigas
Hi. You recently rolled back my addition of “paiche” to the introductory section of this page. The justification, in caps, was that this should only include English common names.

- Paiche is used as a common name elsewhere in that page (see under distribution) - A search for Paiche re-directs to that page. - I was prompted to make this addition after seeing Paiche on sale in my local supermarket (in Australia). I believe that this is from farmed Arapaima in Asia.

A English speaker might reasonably want to look up Paiche on Wikipedia. Spookpadda (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In the lede (the starting paragraph) we only list common names that are in use in English. Can you imagine what the lede of lion would look like if we listed all (or even some) of the 300+ local names for the species there? If the name is in use otherwise and that can be documented, it can be covered in the article body, as it is. - Note that this is really usage-dependent. If look at Arapaima, you will see that the name is listed in the first sentence there because it is used as a market name for any species in this genus. That is also were paiche redirects to. Assigning it to a single species here is like assigning trepang to a specific sea cucumber - as a market name it does not apply to a particular species. It does as a local name for that species, but that's not in common English usage. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Your opinion about Pogoń and Pahonia
Hello, I noticed that you reverted Лобачев Владимир's edit in the article of Pogoń, who reverted mine and Onel5969's edits in which we made it as a redirect page. There is an intensive discussion whenever Pagonia/Pahonia/Pogoń/Vytis/Waikymas (various names of the coat of arms of Lithuania in other languages) is the same thing, so your support in this discussion would be very welcome: HERE. Also, I reported the Belarusians pushing of propaganda HERE as they try to separate Pagonia/Pahonia/Pogoń from the Republic of Lithuania and to falsely prove that the modern Lithuania is derived from Samogitia (Duchy of Samogitia), while Belarus is the primary inheritor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (it is a pure propaganda as it is scientifically known that this state was created by the Balts, not Slavs). So if you have a strong opinion in this topic, please participate in this discussion and in mine report of such actions to the administrators of Wikipedia. Best regards, -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Bateleur
Why? Based on the given etymology, a profession, it shouldn't be capitalised; it's not named after the aircraft. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you edit the Chevrotain edit that I just posted?
Hi Elmidae,

I am very new to interacting with people on this site though I've been editing for 14 years here on Wikipedia. I hope I am contacting you, Elmidae, a person? I was in the teahouse trying to post a questions and something weird happened.

I'd never been to the teahouse and was posting a question but something got messed up.

Do you know what happened? Or can you advise me in any way? I'm pretty confused.

If you did fix my Chevrotain edit, thank you very much. It needs fixing.

Is this how we can communicate with other people editing on Wikipedia? I got some notification from someone else but was not sure how to respond?

I'd appreciate any help.

Thanks very much.

Kris Wood

Kristinamwood (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, I did fix that typo in your edit at chevrotain (which was throwing an error in the reference list). Not sure why you would have gotten a "notification" though - do you mean my edit showed up on your watchlist? The watchlist keeps track of all pages that you set to "watch this page"; the default is that whatever page you edit ends up on there. Chevrotain is on my watchlist, that's how I saw your edit. This list is useful for keeping an eye on developments in those articles you have taken an interest in. There's a link to it at the top of the page.


 * If you want to communicate with another editor directly, their talk page (here, mine) is the correct venue. If you want to talk about a specific article, particularly if the issue needs the input of other editors who are interested in the topic, then the article's talk page is the place to go. That would be Talk:Chevrotain, for example.


 * You can always "ping" other people to make them aware that their attention is wanted in a given discussion. The simplest way is to write, which produces the link (to their user page) "", and also sends them a notification that displays at the top of the page. That notification will also contain a link that allows them to follow it back to wherever the discussion is where they were mentioned. It's what I did at the start of this response. Cheers! -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the great info, Elmidae! That was very useful. And thanks for fixing the reference.

Kris

Kristinamwood (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

"Starmaya Coffee" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Starmaya Coffee. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 30 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 09:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Bottom Bitch
Hey. I came to discuss your redirect of Bottom Bitch to Hot Pink. You claim that it didn't chart but it actually did chart. Not to mention that if you don't like the current sourcing a before-search would have been helpful. And I'm not sure I'm in agreement that any of these are press releases. versacespace leave a message!  22:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * usually charting is the very first thing that gets inserted into a song stub, so not seeing it there generally means it didn't happen. I apologize if in this case I was misled by the unusual reticence of the creator to put that front and center ;) In any case, charting is an indication that substantial sources may be available and doesn't do anything for notability on its own. And I'm really not seeing that substantial coverage. Whether you want to call these tidbits press releases or not, they are very minor, run-of-the-mill blurb items or passing mentions, neither of which cuts the mustard with songs. I'm also not seeing any benefit for splitting this out, frankly - the material works much better in context at Hot Pink (album), which is a well-developed article. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for the quick reply. I think it's worth noting that none of these were passing mentions. Passing mentions present no useful facts about the subject and only name them.
 * I see sources from
 * MTV
 * The Fader
 * Def Pen
 * Billboard
 * HotNewHipHop
 * Paper
 * And these are only the exclusively about Bottom Bitch. Significant coverage from third party outlets. versacespace  leave a message!  22:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * nope, sorry. None of the sources in the article are even worth citing. This is a content-free listing. This is a one-sentence mention. This is a press release or a virtually content-free blurb - take your pick. This is a one-sentence mention. This is another press release/blurb. - That's not even fractionally enough for a standalone article. This stuff would sink at AfD so fast we'd have to dodge the bubbles. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * it would not "sink at AfD". A major requirement at AfD is to do a search, presumably on Google, prior to nomination. I just did one of those and found six reliable sources. AfD doesn't care about the current state of an article as long as it is in reasonable reach to be improved. Which it is because 1. I just found six reliable sources (which i intend to add to a draft when i find the time) and 2. Doja Cat is like, an A-lister, at least for now. Article needs improvement + Doja Cat = obviously will be expanded with reliable sources. versacespace  leave a message!  23:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * if you can provide those source, well and good. Her being an A-lister (like) is entirely beside the point, as I hope you know - not everything notable people do is notable in itself. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * not everything celebrities do are notable but a lead single with six reliable sources is.
 * sources:
 * MTV
 * The Fader
 * Uproxx
 * Billboard
 * etc etc. thats not all i could find but i assume you own this cool gadget called "google" so i'll let you find the rest. versacespace  leave a message!  00:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * yyeeeaahh... frankly I'm not reassured by what you consider "good sources". The MTV one is okay (although not sufficient in itself), the other three are just as crap as the collection we looked at above. If that was all the article had to show, I'd punt it over to AfD directly. - Why don't you draft what you consider a really well-sourced version and reinstate that? Then there would be some solid basis for judging whether the goods exist or not, and we can skip the "there are great sources, you just haven't found them!" bit. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * happy? versacespace  leave a message!  12:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * two pieces of what I guess passes as "substantial coverage" by hype press standards, so I myself wouldn't nominate it for deletion anymore at this point. I still don't see any point in blowing this up into a standalone article that has to be plastered with blurb references to make up its volume, rather than having it in context at the album article, and I suspect others won't either, so I guess expect some initiatives in that direction. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * isn't that the point of WP:BASIC? Blurb refs are okay as long as there's a lot of them. versacespace  leave a message!  14:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * indeed no. Lots of bad quality sourcing is not nearly as good as a single high quality source. It's what's called a WP:REFBOMB, and common perception is that if you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel for every single passing mention, then the topic possibly should not have an article at all. So I'd suggest actively avoiding that approach. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * except none of them are passing mentions except for (maybe) the paper interview. And none of these are "bottom of the barrel". They're all among the primary results that come up when you search for the song. versacespace  leave a message!  14:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No point in haggling about terms. Bad, lightweight sources will be identified as such, and will not do an article any good in a deletion discussion. Try it and see. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ok. versacespace  leave a message!  14:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Massive sulfide deposits
Hi. I have seen you have merged Massive sulfide deposits to Sulfide mineral. If merging, better to Volcanogenic massive sulfide ore deposit and better leaving the complete quote. The rationale is that the term "massive sulfide deposit" is used for several classes of ore deposits (e.g. volcanogenic massive sulfide ore deposit, sediment-hosted sulfide deposit, seafloor massive sulfide deposits  and nowhere is explained what "massive sulfide" means. A merge to sulfide mineral makes little sense. Should I proceed?LFgeol (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't think that positioning it at volcanogenic massive sulfide ore deposit or any of the other possible deposit types would necessarily be better. This is a class of deposit types, thus you would want to have the discussion situated in an article that sits above the individual types - much as you would want to have, e.g., a discussion of hunting dogs vs lap dogs in dog rather than in dachshund. Maybe sulfide mineral isn't the best location? - but I'd suggest it should not be one of the actual examples of the class (e.g., volcanogenic massive sulfide ore deposit).
 * As for the quote, please go ahead, but this appears to me to be reasonably easy to rephrase, which is always preferred to direct quotation. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the rapid answer. Yes, it would be better to have the definition in an article "above"... as it was already the case as the original independent article (that I intended to slightly expand). In this case, I would suggest that it is you who makes the "unmerging", otherwise it looks as "edition war". I will perhaps keep a part of the quote and rephrase the rest. It is a tricky definition for a widely used term, and I need to look for other references. That is the reason for the need of expanding it.--LFgeol (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * alright, if you think this is expandable, it would make more sense as a standalone. I can do that, although it wouldn't be a problem for you to do yourself - edit-warring only happens if people toggle back and forth on something more than twice (i.e., the first revert of some action is always fine). -- Elmidae (talk ·

contribs) 16:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will expand the article in the next days.LFgeol (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Rationales
Thank you. Good rationales at AFD are a thing to aim for. Enjoy User talk:JzG and. Uncle G (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Llandinam railway station

Great Hammerhead Edit
Hi! I really think it would be great to show a local Bahamian feeding the Great hammerhead sharks on the page instead of a foreigner. It’s the local Biminites that fuel the shark eco-tourism industry on the island and work the hardest in shark education and conservation. N.E.Youness (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought the current image is better, but frankly it doesn't make much of a difference, so I won't object if you want to swap it out again. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Cheers! Thank you N.E.Youness (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Purposeful typo
I had left out the i from the article I moved because Google was like "did you mean the same name with no i?" and since I had no knowledge on the subject I assumed it was correct. Blaze The Wolf &#124; Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * for scientific taxon names, standard search engines will often be misleading and swamped with misspellings - that also applies to looking for applicable sources. Catalogue of Life is a useful (although not infallible) port of call for verifying whether a taxon represents accepted nomenclature. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh ok! Thank you! I"m not well versed in Scientific Names at all so that's good to know. Blaze The Wolf &#124; Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure your angle on the NPOV and COI on Dr Eidelberg's High Performance positioning system
Your accusations of NPOV and COI are unfounded, and your accusations of self-editing are false. The paper is an accurate technical introduction to the positioning systems I have 4 of in my charge, running high performance measurements since 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyKurth (talk • contribs) 19:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

AfD
Thanks for your nomination of Gwenaëlle Thomas for AfD, but I fear that from the same student projects there are several more problematic articles: Wiki Ed/University of Washington/Uncommon Leaders - Women and BIPOC in Science (Spring 2021). I dont really know what do do here since these are all well intended, but it seems most will not pass WP:NPROF including Timothy Brei, Lorena Alarcon-Casas Wright, Breanne McGhee etc. Any thoughts? --hroest 01:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Vanderbilt Redirect
Hello. I saw that you reverted my redirect. I am trying to change this page's url to (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanderbilt_(disambiguation)) and rerouting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanderbilt) to (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanderbilt_University). Please let me know if you can help since completing this process with my knowledge involves having a temporary broken link, which is what you undo'd. I would appreciate any help or guidance on the process of doing this, thank you! BugsMeanee (BugsMeanee) 15:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * yeah, that will need a little bit of shuffling with page mover rights. I can do it, but first: are you entirely sure that Vanderbilt University should be the primary topic (i.e., that the reader should not land at the disambiguation as a first choice)? It might be a good idea to first formally propose and discuss that when it concerns a large disambiguation. In fact, I would strongly suggest doing that first, otherwise someone else might immediately undo the moves and create an even bigger mess. You can start a page move discussion at Talk:Vanderbilt for that. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Treace Medical Concepts
Good morning, Elmidae!

I saw that you made some edits to an article I published yesterday, Treace Medical Concepts, and left an https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treace_Medical_Concepts&oldid=1025818088 stating that the article was “very likely created for pay”. I’ve previously worked in orthopaedics, specifically foot & ankle surgery, and became aware of the company during that time, starting work on creating the article back in August 2020, and have been working on it sporadically since then. I realized this week that the company went public last month, so I worked on the article significantly yesterday to get it published. I have never been paid by, or been in contact with, Treace, so I’m writing to ask for some suggestions so that it doesn’t appear that I’m abusing any Wikipedia policies. I have had what I thought could be seen as a WP:COI previously, which I disclosed on my user page, because I’m still semi-new to editing articles and want to go about things the right way.

There was a “Corporate governance” section in the Treace article, which I was a bit hesitant to include, thinking it may make me appear biased; however, I used other medical device company articles as a reference, specifically Stryker Corporation, which has the “Corporate governance” section, which is why I included it in my article. I figured it could always be removed if it other editors thought it wasn’t needed, and it has actually since been removed by another editor, so at least I now know that the Stryker article probably shouldn’t have had it either!

Would you mind giving me some pointers on the article, if you have the time? Like I said, I’m still relatively new at publishing articles, and this was the first article for a public company I’ve ever created (my others have been healthcare-related, as well as a few politicians from my state), and I don’t want to get into any trouble, since I’ve really been enjoying my time editing on Wikipedia.

Any feedback would be really greatly appreciated! I’m just trying to learn :)

Thanks so much! Take care & stay safe! thirsty 07:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * fair enough. I must say that the form and content of the article does ring a few alarm bells of the type we usually get from editing-for-hire: focus on the novelty and innovation of the product, lots of references that are only peripherally related to the topic but seem to be included to "bulk up" the referencing, and a lack of in-depth 3rd party coverage. I'll take your word for it that you are not being paid to create this article, and have removed the template. However I still think that it swings too heavily in an advertorial direction and requires more independent, in-depth coverage, so I'll add the related templates in the hope that some other editors may have a look and comment/edit. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

My Coloring Book and WP:NSONG
Hi there, I came across this article after I was surprised that it was a redirect and decided to create an article, only to find in the article's history that you blanked the article citing WP:NALBUM in this revision. This was not a good decision. First, music compositions fall under a different notability criteria which is found at WP:NSONG and not WP:NALBUM. This particular song meets notability criteria numbers 1, 2, and 3, having charted more than once in recordings by multiple artists and being nominated for two Grammy Awards, including best song. There are a ton of available sources, which could have easily been found to improve the article per WP:BEFORE. I'll note that you blanked this page with no discussion on the talk page or without attempting to get input from a tagged wiki project. Edits like these could be considered vandalism. Please use talk pages and dialogue with other editors before making major edits like these in future.4meter4 (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not on board with that. First, doing a dedicated WP:BEFORE is required if the article is put up for deletion. As a new page reviewer, I certainly do not do that for every article I come across in the review queue; rather I go by the sources that are currently being presented, and I will reinstate a redirect if those do not square up. If I were to punt it over to AfD, that's another story, and could not have been done without some further research. But reverting undersourced articles back to their previous state is quite defensible (and arguably run-of-the-mill) practice in these circumstances. Further, it wasn't "blanking", it was redirecting, which is not "vandalism" by any definition of the term. Third, it was not a "major" edit, because the article at that point was in itself just the result of a previous revert. - So, good job on expanding the article, but I'm afraid I'm not taking on any of these criticisms (except for the typo of WP:NSONG / WP:NALBUM). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's a gross mischaracterization of policy, and an overstatement of the poor quality of the article prior to blanking. There was enough assertion of notability and a couple quality references at that time which would have indicated that blanking the article was not ok. You could have responsibly trimmed the article, rather than doing a drive by blanking of an article you clearly didn't bother to research or invest quality editing in. Blanking the article was overstepping the line into vandalism. Further, we have a host of tags for articles to indicate a need for improvement. Be responsible and use them. 4meter4 (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a hard time arguing seriously with people who throw WP:VANDALISM (read it?) around like popcorn, so I'll stop here. Nice work on the article, anyway. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Why taking out hippos on every single list i included
Good evening, my biggest complaint about you is that i saw you took out or removed the hippo out on one of the articles that i happened to edit on, while it may seem to you that it was a "good" thing, well but not to me clearly because i still believe that hippos were extirpated in the levant (e.g. Israel, Jordan, Palestine, and Syria) and should stay there, whether you like it or not. The action that you did i personally think was indeed very very wrong and i despise of the action of that you did so far, and you should have never never have ever done this in the first place! I don't appreciate of what you did. Sincerely. -- Animalworlds314 (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ...yes, well. See the related talk page discussion. G'night. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well you know what, i'll do something much stupendous better, instead i am going to have to stop being around here in wikipedia anymore because of you meddling Elmidae and also have been thwarting of every action that i have did, you and BhagyaMani. I just hope you are happy with it. So as a result of you and BhagyaMani, i am no longer going to be around wikipedia and say farewell to this encyclopedia, of which i have done it.-- Animalworlds314 (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can't participate here without calling people "despicable" and "demonic", then that's probably best. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, i decided to return after what happened to me yesterday with the edit wars and all of that, i'm sorry that i was such a jerk and that i won't call people bad names ever again and i'll make sure that i do good deeds instead. Now Elmidae, is it possible that i can bring some of the animals that either you or BhagyaMani took out on of the pages that i kept edit warring on one of list of mammals of anywhere articles back but with IUCN citations? -- Animalworlds314 (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * the requirements for these lists are simple. If you can reliably demonstrate that the animal occurred in the region after 1500 CE (which is the IUCN's own cut-off date for giving assessments as "extinct"), then it can go on the list. "Demonstrating" here means that the weight of sources must go that way - e.g., if one source says just "extinct, occurred in region" and another, more detailed one says "last records from 5000 BCE", then the latter trumps the former (this is how it is for the hippopotamus). Also keep in mind that while the IUCN is the gold standard people have been using in building these lists, it is not infallible: we had the case of tigers in, I believe, Georgia, where the IUCN has them as extinct post-1500, but the very source they cited contradicted that statement. - Basically, really read your sources, and don't try to WIN - that is absolutely not what Wikipedia is about. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To add to the IUCN bit: if the IUCN does not have a record for the species in the region, that is usually a very good indication that it did not occur post-1500 - not proof positive, but their stuff is written by the global experts for each taxon, and sources that seem to show contrary claims should be evaluated very carefully. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh i see and your good point, but my question is that: Does that mean i can start bringing back the animals that you got rid of as well as how BhagyaMani got rid of the animals that i included on a section called locally extinct or extinct on each of the articles that begin with "List of mammmals of" anywhere? or not? (I don't want to obviously start doing this over again with edit warring and flipping out without asking you if i can do it because otherwise i would be in serious trouble.) -- Animalworlds314 (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * this reply makes me think that you don't understand me. These entries were removed because they did not meet the above criteria. Do you think we just did that for fun and games? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No it is not true, i will understand you once and for all, i do not think that you are playing games or anything, please, don't be so harsh on me. I did not mean it. I will take you so seriously by all means. -- Animalworlds314 (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Supporting for IUCN cut off time frame for 1500 AD
, why in the name of great lord am i seeing people supporting for 1500 AD for the most part, that part to me is gigantically disgusting! I don't like it, Clear? If i were one of them, i would instead support for locally extinct animals in each region before 1500 AD (e.g. The Bronze Age, Ancient History or whatever), because if i have a deep feeling that animals that are regionally extinct on each area but before 1500 AD should be applicable without any issues! That is part that i am protesting and against their ideas at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals part of only including after 1500 AD. Let's see what happens then. -- Animalworlds314 (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Less stream-of-consciousness, more punctuation and cohesiveness please. Also I suggest you keep it to the discussion at the Wikiproject talkpage. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, from the part where you said "keep it to the discussion at the Wikiproject talkpage" well i already have kept it to that talk page, but anyways thanks for your advice, appreciate it. -- Animalworlds314 (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Fears about more people voting for 1500 AD as cut off date in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals
, from what i am seeing in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals is that i predict that they are going to be more people saying about keeping for the same criteria as always about IUCN and cut off date 1500 AD, which is setting up my fears about that. That part is is not good and this needs to stop! Why did you ever set up a discussion about whether an additional criteria needs to occur or keep the same criteria for years to come. That of when you first created a discussion there, was absolutely a very terrible thing you have done and if you look at there, you'll see that more people are voting for the dull 1500 AD cut off date and IUCN, i am so sick of that and i had enough with it. I hate to be rude and mean Elmidae, but you are going to have regret the day that you created that discussion! This is scaring me, because they won't be as many people saying the same thing as i said, you know the whole thing about mammals that became extinct/extirpated in each region by the Iron Age, Ancient History or whatever early time period in written history prior to 1500 AD being included as well as the criteria. If i see that more people choose for that stupid and disgusting same boring IUCN and cut off date, then i am going to have to leave Wikipedia for good, i'll never return, and quickly forget that whole thing about list of mammals articles. -- Animalworlds314 (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Calm. DOWN. This is NOT about you. This is a global project for building a well-structured encyclopedia. You are free to leave any time you want, and trying to use it as a threat is not only ineffective but looks childish. Just... go read a book, or go outside. Don't act this way. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, "act this way", "use it as a threat" and "effective", i'll show you how effective i will become when i say this: you are a big fat peace of menace to me that you started this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals on purpose!!!, you've made only things worse now with more people demanding for IUCN and 1500 AD cut off, and the reason is because of you!! I hope you're just satisfied with it, now that is threatening and not childish that can easily encourage you to ban or block me from the site. I thought at first there would be some people voting for the same thing of what i have been saying all this time, but no, they chose to be with IUCN and 1500 AD. I am through and you caused this already badly!! How could you?because it seems to me more people are asking to keep IUCN and cut off date 1500 AD. It is all your fault that you ever started this discussion you nasty creature! Earlier, i said i would stop calling names well it looks i am doing it again. You know what, today i am leaving again but with no promise of returning to wikipedia forever and ever. I'll erase my personal page and erase my talk page, and once i do that i am not here anymore! -- Animalworlds314 (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to see that s/he threw all this insane rubbish at you. I appreciate that you initiated this discussion : it was high time!! All these lists were drawn up 20 years ago on basis of IUCN Red List entries using search criteria that are not available any more. But I think, we should stick to referencing the resp. entries. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Re indeffed: please go ahead. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

, i want you to look at your talk page and i have a message for you on ‎Taking things out on every list of mammals articles i include. -- Animalworlds314 (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Taking things out on every list of mammals articles i include
, just what in the name of earth is wrong with you, why do you ever take things out on anything i can include based on my knowledge, ok? This kind of Shenanigan needs to be over permanently! Now pay clear attention to this, just so you know that i may sound cruel on this case and that will be a thing for me to kick your big disgusting ass out of here, get my revenge, and get rid of you for god damn good but i Animalworlds314 am hereby banning you on editing on every kind of list that has to do with mammals of every country for the rest of your days and you are to take off the list of mammals on your watchlist out! now! Not only that, but also banishing you from editing Wikipedia too, since i look at you as a disgraceful maggot. Even before that discussion on cut off dates, you kept constantly taking out on every species that i include on each list of mammals articles. You are not going to be part of Wikipedia anymore mister and leave now as one of your dreadful punishments from me. Say goodbye to wikipedia you filthy freak because of me banishing you from this encyclopedia over taking things out inappropriately. You will never EVER ever enjoy your days on Wikipedia forever and ever, you don't deserve to be here on Wikipedia. I am having no mercy on you. Why should i be nice to you, you are just a disgusting big gigantic unwanted devil or demon that keeps on taking things out on innocent people that people feel that they should include mammals that became extinct in each region before 1500 AD. So mark my words, go, get out of Wikipedia, shoo, I never want to see you around here anymore because you have been on 's friend and on his side. I am kicking you butt out of here! mister! One more thing, Never come back!!! and this will be your defeat. -- Animalworlds314 (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * FYI, see ANI for the latest sock, now blocked.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If there is any value in the adage about one being judged by the quality of one's enemies, then this is becoming rather depressing. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)