User talk:Elmidae/Archive 12

Baten Kaitos
User:Sergecross73 misrepresented that there was a consensus against creating a dab page. There wasn't. When analyzed, it was the reverse. I've documented his slow-motion edit-war at Talk:Baten Kaitos. He ought to be de-adminned. Skyerise (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify, as I've since pointed out to this editor, what I actually said was that there wasn't a consensus to make the dab, referring to the 2020 most recent (and only) actual discussion on the subject, where the proposal that was at a stale mate for the last 10 months.  Sergecross73   msg me  02:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Edits to my Sablicola and Stelligera pages
Hi Elmidae You edited the pages I created yesterday and turned the taxobox that describes down to the genus level (which is what the page is) and changed them to species boxes that describe down to a species level. The page is one for a genus and not for a species, so I am curious why you would make that change. I am not a professional by any means but am rather making edits that I believe to be correct, so if you could explain why your side would be correct that would be very beneficial. Thanks! Macauley

EDIT: I misremembered the sablicola edits, but my point regarding the Stelligera fungus still stands.

EDIT 2: So on further looking I see that what happened with Sablicola chinensis is that you merged the page with the genus page for Sablicola and changed the taxobox to show a species level, making the species name redirect to the genus page. I don't think this is correct, but would happily be proven wrong. I am new to editing Wiki :)


 * (please remember to sign talk page edits with four tildes - ~ -, to date and link them) - this is based on the way the current organization scheme for taxonomy works on Wikipedia. For monotypic taxa, articles bottom out at the genus (whether it's a monospecific genus or a monospecific order, the article title itself will be at the genus). This means A) that for monospecific genera, there won't be a species article; the species name is redirected to the genus, and the species covered there. However, B) often it is the species that is of interest to the reader, and not the genus/family/order/however high up the monotypy goes. So one approach is to present the species data in the infobox, to make it immediately visible, but keep the title of both the box and the article at the genus. This leads to constructions like mine at Stelligera (fungus), or for example Polyplacotoma. Having the taxobox for the genus and noting the single type species is also workable - see e.g. Richtersius. - As an addendum, C) independent of that, we are really trying to transform taxoboxes to the automatic type - Automatic taxobox (and its various children, e.g. the speciesbox). For obvious organizational reasons :)
 * So, in summary: redirecting monotypic species to their genus and treating them there is standard, and I can't think of any exceptions. Whether the infobox goes down to species, or stops at genus and names the type species, is a matter of taste. But in either case, automatic taxoboxes are preferred. So at this point I would just convert the Stelligera (fungus) box to automatic genus + type species, if that's what you prefer, and keep Sablicola as is. Okay? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

That all makes a lot of sense now that I've had it explained. Thanks so much for your help, and I'll make sure to use your input in future edits or pages I make! Macbo11 (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I had to look around for a bit but just remembered where all that stuff is actually codified: it's at Naming conventions (fauna). The monotypy redirection bit is at Naming_conventions_(fauna). The "which type of infobox to use" thing is, AFAIK, just a consensus that developed over the years. - In general, if you have questions about related issues, the talk page of the WP:Wikiproject Tree of Life is a great place to get quick responses. Cheers! -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Nationality of Tenzing Norgay Sherpa
The nationality of Tenzing Norgay is Nepalese only. One person can not have two nationality and nationality can not be changed as like citizenship. I hope you will revert your edit. If there is problem including citizenship in infobox, please try to improve infobox; you can't provide wrong information. ~ Yeti Dai (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * nope. This has been hashed over ad nauseam regarding this article; consensus is that the infobox should show dual Nepalese and Indian nationality. Take it to the talk page if you want to make changes, and be prepared to argue against some pretty well-sourced findings of fact. (You might also find that the distinction between nationality and citizenship is not as clean as you'd like it to be.) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Martha Schneider-Bürger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Do not redirect to the Mirza Abad, Chakri article.
This article is named after the village. Which is located in Jhelum district of Pakistan. Please do not redirect this article. What's wrong with my article.? What should I change if this is a problem? Thanks.
 * - I find this display of innocence hard to believe. Apparently you notice when someone mentions you, so how did you manage to miss the last half dozen messages on your talk page telling you to source everything you put into an article? You cannot add material that does not have a reliable reference attached which demonstrably contains those statements. The single source you have scrounged up the last few time does not even mention the name of this village. No sources - no addition to articles; it's that simple. Stop adding unsourced text or you will be blocked, at least from editing this article, possibly more widely. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Last sentence of lede
Are you referring to the sentence about how most fish belong to the class Actinopterygii? Somed00d1997 (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The traditional term pisces (also ichthyes) is considered a typological, but not a phylogenetic classification. - There is no phylogenetically valid "class" 'pisces', and only such a taxon would be presented in position where you inserted it (as the scientific taxon name). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also see Fish: Fish are a paraphyletic group: that is, any clade containing all fish also contains the tetrapods, which are not fish. For this reason, groups such as the class Pisces seen in older reference works are no longer used in formal classifications. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit on Tisamenus fratercula
Hello Elmidae, so far I have only created articles in the German Wikipedia and am therefore not that familiar with the rules in the English Wikipedia and hope you can help me in this regard, especially your changes to the article about Tisamenus fratercula, which I also wrote in the German original. In the German Wikipedia, articles about species or other taxa are assumed after the introduction that the description is the most interesting for the average reader. The taxonomy usually follows quite far back, as it is more of interest to the specialists and a basic classification already takes place in the taxobox. Is this different in the English Wikipedia? If taxonomy is so important that it is the guiding theme, why are the results of (taxonomic) studies (here the not so close relationship of T. fratercula to T. deplanatus despite great morphological similarity and initially assumed close relationship by Rehn & Rehn) so uninteresting that they do not belong in the article? And are the authors who reassign to genres like Oliver Zompro also so uniterritious that they do not belong in the article/topic? And why is Mr. Hennemann don't have a first name? Is it in the Engl. Wikipedia common links for authors and what are meant here are those who work as taxonomic authors and describe species or other taxa (such as Hennemann, Conle, Brock, Bresseel, Constant, ...), only to be linked if they already have already an own article? Although there is an article about Mr. Zompro, but you have removed the link anyway. In the German Wikipedia, we assume that topics to which an article is entitled should already be linked in order to reduce the need to link from other articles after the article has been created. And how do James Abram Garfield Rehn and his son John William Holman Rehn fit in this? While the above-mentioned have in some cases already described significantly more taxa than J. W. H. Rehn, who no longer worked scientifically after 1939 and will probably not receive an article of his own in the foreseeable future, authors such as Brock or Kneubühler already have such articles in the German Wikipedia. As you may have noticed, I start in the Engl. Wikipedia is just starting out and I appreciate any advice.As you may have noticed, I start in the Engl. Wikipedia is just getting started and I am happy about any advice. Thank you for your answer in advance and sorry for the length and number of my questions.Best --Drägü (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * On enWP, the standard in taxa articles is for the taxonomy section to be the first section, sometimes preceded by an etymology section if present; description follows next, then other stuff (usually habitat & distribution, then ecology, conservation, human interactions).
 * The results of studies are usually given without any author names at all - that's what the reference is for. Exceptions are usually made for the original describer (here the Rehns), and they also make sense when further discussion in the same article has to refer back to specific studies, in which case the author is a useful shorthand. But otherwise "a 2021 study found that" or just "it was found that" is preferable to "X,Y and Z found in 2021 that". Naming study authors, when it is the result and not the author that is in focus, is generally regarded as name-dropping and avoided.
 * Notability requirements for scientists are somewhat more strict on enWP than on deWP. I'm aware that on deWP, having described a single species is sufficient to fulfill the respective guideline; here that is not enough (see WP:NPROF, and a related discussion from a while back), and most taxonomists are not considered notable just based on their standard work output. Authors of such studies are generally presumed non-notable unless shown otherwise (i.e. a bio article exists), and are not automatically redlinked in expectation of becoming valid wikilinks. Taxa articles ported over from deWP tend to have a lot of such permanent redlinked names, and it's a recurrent task to remove them :) My thinking is that Rehn the younger is probably notable and thus a valid redlink, but even so should only be linked here because he is an original (co-)describer.  Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt reply. As far I understand. Even if I find it a bit surprising that the first and therefore apparently very important topic of taxonomy to reduce the scientists who have renamed and grouped taxa etc. However, there are still questions not clearly answered to me. Why should you not at least link authors who already have an article in the references (like Zompro and believe me I'm not a fan, more the opposite). I thought links are also there in the English Wikipedia to get information quickly and without having to go through the search mask if you are interested. And am I really wrong to link as a precaution to authors who are certain to receive articles in the future? For example, Paul Brock has described over 120 taxa since 1995 (mostly as the only or first author) and is still active. James Abram Garfield Rehn, who has since passed away, did not manage more than that. His son only has 41 taxa, 38 of which only as a co-author of his father. At the tender age of almost 40, Frank Hennemann already has over 280 taxa, most of whom he described as the first author. I found the discussion you linked about the relevance of taxonomists quite interesting. The whole thing slips out of my understanding in places when it comes to establishing lists, etc. On the other hand, it is very entertaining to read what some people believe in how taxonomists work. However. I believe I have at least understood that, following notability (academics), the most important people in a discipline (including taxonomy) deserve articles. In the case of phasmids, you can currently only find articles about the pioneers in this area. When I remember my early years as a phasmid breeder, it was easy to get information about dealers and keepers. It was and is still almost impossible for the average interested person to find out something about the scientifically working phasmatologists, because they have no profile neurosis and constantly post on Facebook etc. how great they are. This is exactly what makes it so difficult to write an article about these people. Presenting their scientific performance is much easier than just getting their personal (birth) data verifiable. So my suggestion would be to link the really relevant researchers. While those with so far only typical academic performance should (for the time being) remain unlinked. Would that be a manageable solution? I tried to do this into Tisamenus deplanatus right away.--Drägü (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Another question: Is it really necessary to change the heading from "Terraristic" to "In Captivity"? There are some very negative and highly judgmental aspects to be found under captivity. The animals are actually trapped here, but both as pets and for further scientific processing. After all, various animals from such breeds/stocks are now type specimens in various scintific collections. In other articles this is circumvented with headings such as "In Aviculture" (for birds, of course) or "As pets". I could be enthusiastic about "In terraristics". In your opinion, would that be acceptable?--Drägü (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * at the end of the day, we are better off with more well-sourced information and more cross-connections than with less. So I'd suggest you follow your judgement here, keeping in mind the best practices noted above (which are often only fuzzily delineated; you'll note that taxonomist discussion did not end with any of the hoped-for definite criteria...). I don't want to impede content creators just for the sake of some lesser standardization issues. Re "Terraristic", that did sound a bit odd/overly specific to me, and unlikey to mean much to the layman reader (whereas "In captivity" is unambiguous). I do like "In terraristics" a little better. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Elmidae again. Regarding the order of the topics, unfortunately, there does not seem to be any agreement. See: User: Roy Bateman has reversed the order here, compare versions, although I would actually unreservedly agree to place the taxonomy (with genera and species) first. In the introductory table I used the very good list in Arini (tribe) as a guide. What do you mean reverting to the version with the introductory table?--Drägü (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * well, to muddy the waters a bit more, I'd actually agree with in this case, because it's not very reader-friendly to start off the article proper (after the lede) with a huge table - you want that low down in the article, otherwise it's very uninviting to start reading with. So depending on which section the table (which I heartily approve of) is placed, some non-"standard" shuffling of sections may be necessary. I like the current version. If the table was not in there, I'd move taxonomy back up again. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello and  - firstly, a big thank you for your all your splendid work on this page: I can't add much to what you have said above and just to explain where I am coming from here ... Other editors, on other pages, have attempted to minimise "white space" and this was one of my motivations for moving the cladogram: clumsily, because I find both these and positioning text (relative to the taxobox) 'difficult to drive' at times.  I agree with Drägü that these pages now look good, and most readers probably primarily want to know something about (i) what the organism is, (ii) where it comes from and (iii) what it does for a living - provided we can find the information of course!  After that comes the taxonomic information IMHO: via linkages where possible: and many of my efforts have been attempts to make it easier to navigate between species pages and the higher taxonomy. Brgds Roy Bateman (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to honestly say that I find this approach a bit irritating and disillusioning. In the case of species, it should be correct to begin with the taxonomy part, i.e. the part in which it is explained when who gave this species the name, when and why the genus has changed, how synonyms have come about, etc.! With all due understanding, but if I had no idea about biology or more precisely from zoology, I would be least interested in one species and bored the most by this topic. The opposite happened to me with a higher taxon. If I open an encyclopedia article, I would, as an interested layman (and I would have to be one to end up with such an article), which representatives belong to this taxon. If I don't know the representatives well, I would be happy to receive a corresponding overview. I would be least interested in the anatomical differences that distinguish this taxon from its sister taxon. To me it sounds like you would prefer a strange subject-specific perspective here. If that is the approach, it seems to me to be rather untypical for an encyclopedia. As an aside, all of the articles I have edited about Phasmatodea result from their presence in the terrariums of enthusiasts and I am sure that more than 95% of the readers of these articles read them because they are most interested in keeping these species. Does it therefore make sense to take terraristics right up to the head and first topic and add and discuss it in more detail? I tend to think not. A Wikipedia article should not be written for either a taxonomy historian or a terrarium keeper. Therefore I hereby officially give up on the order of the topics. Feel free to revise what you think you need to do better. But it would be nice if the person doing this were at least so precise that the links are correct sorted again and not working with terms in the first one to three sections that are linked in the fourth section. Because this seems as if an elitist group wants to decide and the real work remains for the committed common people. Sorry but in this way working on Wikipedia is a bit frustrating--Drägü (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC).

Rename Inga feuilleei
Could you please move the page Inga feuilleei to Inga feuillei? It's a long-running confusion. Only mods can make this change. Does Wikispecies need to be updated as well? PametUGlavu (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin, although I do have page mover rights and thus could move the page. However, I see no indication that that is necessary. The species is registered under this name in the authoritative databases (e.g. [The Plant List]), and is also well-formed based on taxonomic Latin grammar - the specific epithet is derived from Louis Feuillée, which is turned into the genitive form by adding -i: feuilleei; the second e is definitely retained. Why do you think this name is mistaken? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The geezer's surname is not decisive. Check http://plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:128507-2 & https://tropicos.org/name/Search?name=Inga%20feuillei & Terry Pennington's "The Genus Inga" PametUGlavu (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * looks like split sources. I suggest you bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants, where people with a better overview can have a look at the issue. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * theplantlist.org has been static/inactive since 2013. It says that on their front page as well as their wikipedia page. PametUGlavu (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * GRIN spells it with two e's and explains their choice of spelling with a reference to the ICNafp. When it comes to questions of spelling, the most useful databases are IPNI, GRIN and Tropicos. Although any one of these databases may not address a particular case of variant spellings in the literature, when cases are addressed, the alternate spelling is noted and an explanation is given (often with a relevant ICNafp article). Databases which only acknowledge one spelling aren't useful for determining which spelling variant is correct. Plantdrew (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Need to Create Romanch Page
We have created a page for Romanch, He is an actor from Kerala, India, Seems you have redirected his page to an unknown phrase. Can you please check and solve the issue.

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello ,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our  Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but  there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software. Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Varicorbula et Varicorbula gibba
I corrected errors --Herobrine7 (talk).

Ringtail reverts
You don't seem to understand the issue about possible plagiarism. The worry is not that the cited source has been plagiarised, but that the same text appearing readily on the internet suggests that there has been some copying. The case you should be making is that the search hits for the article text are the result of wikipedia being copied. not the other way round. Just ranting on about "nonsense" in the edit summary does nothing to resolve the situation. From investigating the matter, it seems likely that others have copied wikipedia, but you did not make that point when reverting []

Then there is the issue of what is meant by "tameability". Encouraging a wild animal to live alongside humans is one thing, a "tamed" animal has a higher level of interaction with humans. I am not sure that your sources support such a claim. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry, nope. If the concern is that the WP text is a copyvio of an existing text other than the source provided, you will have to note that - otherwise the clear conclusion is that the comparison is about the two samples under discussion (and that obviously does not apply here). Other editors are not mind readers. - As for "tameability", I agree that the term is a bit awkward, but the meaning certainly applies - ringtails were kept as pets in hutches in cabins. "Domestication" would probably be too strong although that claim IS being made (if not by the greatest of sources, see e.g. ). So please feel free to come up with a better phrasing. Human interaction? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I checked the OED for "tame" (adjective): [I have added numbers to the sections of text separate by commas]"(1)Having the disposition or character of a domesticated animal;(2) accustomed to man; not showing the natural shyness, fear of, or fierceness to man;(3) familiar;(4)also of persons, their disposition, etc.: made tractable, docile, or pliant." I suggest that the article is using (2) more than (1), particularly "not showing ... natural shyness...". I think this might be one of those frustrating situations where the English language does not have exactly the word that is needed.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Date edit 15 November.
I saw that my edit (1965 to 1955) was manually reverted and wondered why this was done, as all sources I have found consider the war to have started on 1 November 1955. Shipyard43328 (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * oops - my bad, no idea what was going on there. Senior moment? :) I have reverted. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

No problem :) Shipyard43328 (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Miranda Brawn Article
Hello, Elmidae, thanks for reviewing my article Miranda Brawn. Please let me know what are your thoughts about it, as I think I verified every sentence of it by reliable sources and I also wrote it from a neutral point of view. Since I published it last week, multiple members of the Wiki community touched and edited it and no one had any issue with the page, however, today it has been tagged as being "written like an advertisement" by User:Giraffer. Please let me know, what do you think, should I, and how could I improve the page if needed? Thanks, DillonPalm (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * the language in the article seems neutral enough to me. Maybe you'd like to ask Giraffer about the bits that they consider unsuitably phrased. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks, I did that straight away when I found the tag waiting for their response. Thanks for your response. DillonPalm (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Orcas In Captivity
Hello. I'm unsure from where you learned that dolphins are whales, but that is not true. Killer whales are dolphins, orcas are killer whales, and none of the above is a whale. Just the same as red pandas are not pandas, killer, false killer, and pilot whales are not whales. They are all dolphins. Dolphins are not whales either. They are dolphins. WiggleCat (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to do anything about that particular edit, because frankly that phrasing is as serviceable as the prior one. However, just in case you were intending to spread your opinion through further articles - you are wrong. All dolphins are whales - they are in the infrorder Cetacea, which is, plain and simple, whales. You could just look at the first sentence of killer whale, which tells you that orcas are toothed whales - same as sperm whales, among others. Dolphins are just a further subgrouping within toothed whales. What you are saying is akin to insisting that "bald eagles aren't birds, they are eagles!". One is a subgroup of the other. - Anyway, no skin of my back, but please desist from editing any other articles under this mistaken assumption. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not wrong. While you are correct that dolphins are of the infraorder cetacea, further classification exists under the family delphinidae. Orcas are classified under the same family as dolphins, belonging to the delphinidae family. While a sperm whale is also a toothed whale, it belongs to the family physeteridae, not delphinidae, because a sperm whale is not a dolphin. It's a whale. The family physeteridae consists of only whales. While a dolphin may technically be a whale at the infraorder level and above, at the level of family they are dolphins, and orcas share the same family. There is a reason these more specific groupings of family, genus, etc exist. Anything at the order level is far too broad.


 * To further clarify, my "assumption" is not mistaken because we do not group animals by their infraorder. We name them by more specific groupings such as family and genus. For example, the infraorder arctoidea contains bears, seals, weasels, raccoons, red pandas, sea lions, and skunks. If I applied your logic to other articles and named animals by their infraorder, we would be calling bears, skunks, and seals the same animal. An orca is not a whale just the same as a skunk is not a bear. Both groups share the same infraorder to their respective species, so this is an apples to apples comparison applied to other mammals. If you wouldn't call a raccoon a sea lion then you shouldn't call an orca a whale either. WiggleCat (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah yeah, whatever; I don't care about your semiotics. I and every other zoologist agree that all dolphins are whales. Usage on Wikipedia follows suit. You may persist in your interpretation, as long as you don't go screwing up articles where the phrasing matters. Over and out. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Ismene (moth) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ismene (moth) 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/Ismene (moth) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. If you'd like to input. YorkshireExpat (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Malayan tiger revert
You deleted the murder of a critically endangered animal, critically endangered solely because of anthropogenic causes. This one was murdered in a zoo by a man, and so described in the section of captivity. Your explanation was "it doesn't belong here." Instead of removing content, can you suggest where this noteworthy event should be discussed? Thank you.
 * nowhere, unless it receives a lot of coverage. This is an encyclopedia, not a news archive. This ocurrence is not WP:RELEVANT to the topic Malayan tiger and therefore should not be part of the article. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The news is flying around the net, is being covered by every major daily and TV outlet in Florida, and will be, according to my editor friend at ABC, on the evening news. Is that enough for you?
 * Kindly keep it to the article talk page, now that you have started a discussion there. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

This will be my last comment on this page re this issue as per your request. My friend's alert at ABC News, noted above, was accurate. The national network news coverage occurred from 5:41 to 5:43 pm CST on ABC News, including video and comments and the cryptic, "the tiger died." Tomorrow I expect the log of today's page views to explode from the typical 225 to thousands.

Addition of Panthera pardus tulliana to all leopard articles
Panthera pardus tulliana is the article's name, not "Anatolian leopard" or "Persian leopard", which both refer to it. I was just putting in the article's correct name.2601:CA:4380:3A20:49C2:D076:AE11:6573 (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Didn't you even look at my response above before you threatened to report me? In fact, why don't you just undo all the other leopard subspecies while you're at it? They've all got the same thing, except for Amur leopard, because I can't get into it right now.

If you'd just try looking at the article I mentioned above. you'd know I'm right.

Why didn't you just ask first before jumping to conclusions? I hate it when people blame me for crimes I didn't commit.2601:CA:4380:3A20:49C2:D076:AE11:6573 (talk)` — Preceding undated comment added 03:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi Elmidae, hope you're well. I saw your comment on an ANI discussion today, and couldn't help wondering why you weren't an admin; and then I remembered our previous conversation on the topic. My opinion of your suitability hasn't changed, and our need is as large as ever. Have you by any chance reconsidered? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have actually been reconsidering it a little - not because I believe I have suddenly become more temperamentally suited for adminship, but because I'm worried by our current admin depletion and lack of new applications. That is going to become dangerous sooner rather than later. Might be worth tossing my hat into the ring even on moderate chances to be able to offer some help. However, I need to have more time for WP before I do that, at all levels - for potential admin tasks, for the application process, and for shoring up my knowledge and output ("lack of content creation" etc., and I don't necessarily disagree with that as a criterion). Currently I can only squeeze in 0.5-1 h / day for WP, which is no good. Things may look up towards the middle of the new year. I'll re-assess then... -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear it! I agree entirely about the shortage. FWIW, there have been many months during which my activity dropped below 1hr/day; I'd like to think I was still an asset to the admin corps. Even a single AfD closed by you is one someone else doesn't have to deal with. That said, it's never a bad idea to polish your skills in areas you expect to work in, and some article creation would help, as we've discussed (I know your content skills are fine, but not everyone will). If you don't mind, I'll touch base with you in a few months. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's do that :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Elmidae, here I am as promised to revisit this chat. How are things looking for you? Vanamonde (Talk) 11:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I've had my all-time low in participation over the last half year, too much traveling and meatspace busy-ness... can't claim I've done anything substantial on the content front, so that basis isn't there right now. Things are bound to look up come autumn (I hope). Rain check? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I'll circle back to this in a few months, but feel free to reach out whenever. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Guanaco reversion
I see you've reverted a lot of new and sourced content added to Guanaco at. Was this by mistake? Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * nope, as intended. I removed the existing section on diet because it was unsourced; feel free to re-add with sources. Incombining material into one Ecology section, I also removed duplication about fox predation, which was already present AND added again in the recent addition - don't need to cover that twice. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, just didn't know by the edit summary. Thanks! :) Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh- I did not see the Fox was covered already — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildlifespec (talk • contribs) 19:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * only partly though (you had a different study cited), so I merged the two together. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Question about draft status and the Kinchaku article
Following up on some concerns from the EN Wikt, I was reminded that you'd moved the Kinchaku article to Draft space (Draft:Kinchaku) in June 2019. Another user that for speedy deletion after it sat there unchanged for several months. Another couple editors then removed the speedy deletion notice, and redirected the page to the mainspace article -- which the same problematic user Mare-Silverus had a couple weeks after you moved the previous article to Draft space.

The mainspace article at Kinchaku suffers from the same complete lack of sources that you pointed out in June 2019. This is also arguably not notable enough for a standalone article, as the content could easily be included instead as part of the List_of_items_traditionally_worn_in_Japan page, where indeed there is already a listing for kinchaku. In my own view, there just isn't enough material to justify a dedicated page.

Curious as to your thoughts. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter – 018



 * February 2022&mdash;Issue 018


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

about Human identical sequence
HI！Elmidae, thank you for rescue my poor grammar in Human identical sequence, English is not my mother tongou. The main content of this entry is only supported by one article published in 2022.

By the way, I am not a member of this research group, and there is no conflict of interest with this article.

I have a few ideas for improving this entry: 1.why did delete information about Host identical sequence? In the Discussion of this article, the author has put forward this concept:I think this entry can be proved by more following scientific research articles, so I redirect it here.

"Accordingly, these identical sequences, termed here as "host identical sequences (HIS)". There are also similar sequences between the genomes of SARS-CoV-2 and their potential hosts including bat,64 Malayan pangolins,65,66 ferrets, and cats.67"

2.Human identical sequence ont only share in human and coronavirus, but also other RNA virus (list in Supplementary materials 6 of this article) So I don't think it's appropriate to list all the sequences in the form of a list, maybe it can move to "list of human identical sequence in coronavirus" or "list of host identical sequence between human and coronavirus"?

"In particular, HIS was found within other more than 100 pathogenic RNA viruses, including HIV,61 Ebolavirus,62 and Zika virus,63 indicating a common phenomenon that pathogenic viruses share identical genomic sequences to their hosts."

3.Now these sequence listed matching rate is 100% of ~20 bp, According to the author, 95%(1 mismatched base), 90%(2 mismatched) matching rate sequence still have approximate NamiRNAs properties. Maybe this list can be expanded by following research. --Htmlzycq (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * regarding (1) - frankly I couldn't make sense of the sentence as written, particularly since it linked to a circular redirect, so I removed it. If I understand correctly, this is another term only traceable to this paper? In that case I suggest a more careful formulation - maybe: It has been suggested that these sequences can be more generally termed "host identical sequences" since similar correlations have been found between the genome of SARS-CoV-2 and multiple potential hosts (bats, pangolins, ferrets, and cats).
 * Regarding (2) and (3), I don't think it's appropriate to replicate such lists in their entirety on Wikipedia. The idea is to summarize findings and provide links to the details, rather than copy lots of data to this location. I'm actually wondering whether it is such a good idea to even have the lists as currently present in the article, but at any rate I don't think we should go ahead and expand them further. At the very least it is not ideal to base such extensive material on a single publication. My suggestion would rather be to summarize the points you make here (applies to many other RNA viruses, and the concept can be expanded to partial matches) and reference the respective material. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

2 diffs
Hey!! Please have a look at and. I think that this change on main page is not ok in view of its present title, but didn't want to edit war. What do YOU think? – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know why WP:BRD is such an arcane concept for some editors. Replied on talk page. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life/Newsletter/019



 * March 2022&mdash;Issue 019


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Reverted edit on page Pterocarpus marsupium
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pterocarpus_marsupium&oldid=prev&diff=1081256233

I added Chhattisgarh specifically as a state in India to which this species is a native. This makes it easier for people to find this tree species when looking for trees native to the region. So, this edit is helpful for readers. Not sure why you marked the change as 'unnecessary'. Kindly provide more details.

Shreshthmohan (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * when we have a distribution this wide (I mean, look at the distribution map here) then it is rather pointless to pick out a single small location unless there is something very special about it. Think about this as saying "the raccoon occurs in Hoboken, New Jersey, as well as the rest of North America". There's no benefit for the reader. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Look What I Found
I found a recently published paper about one of your relatives.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Haha! Yes, I'm trying to keep the juvenile behaviour subfossil :p That reminds me that I've been wanting to bluelink a few more of my namesake genera when opportunity arises... long term plans... -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you need restorations, let me know.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank You
Hello Thank you for fixing my edit on Breviceps at first i believed Breviceps pentheri was the same species or a subspecies of the Breviceps adspersus i believed this due to https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Breviceps_adspersus this page listing it as a synonym for Breviceps adspersus and multiple other sources doing the same thing but after further research i found that those sources where outdated and found this https://amphibiansoftheworld.amnh.org/Amphibia/Anura/Brevicipitidae/Breviceps/Breviceps-pentheri which confirmed your point thank you for fixing my mistake Massimo510 (talk) 06:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Yolande DuBois
Someone edited the page and conflated W.E.B. DuBois's daughter and granddaughter.

I don't know how to fix. 172.58.190.128 (talk) 05:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter – 020



 * April 2022&mdash;Issue 020


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Pokemon Mudkip Swampert concern comment
I don't understand. Lots of the pop culture stuff for the Axolotl isn't even important or beneficial to the species. Some of them don't even have sources, such as the first one. I get the Minecraft one because it's raising awareness for the species extinction, but the trivia fact for Bojack Horseman and some of the others isn't important. There needs to be a guide so that editors will know what is credible and not waste their time because to me, this feels more people being nickpicky based on opinions rather than being factual. 68.62.155.13 (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Replied on talk page. But as a rough guideline, figuring out which way the relevance runs is a good indivator to decide whether a pop culture mention should be added or not. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022
Hello ,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently Special:ListUsers/patroller New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you Gerda! Always good to know that you are keeping track of the local loonies :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022
Hello ,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.
 * Backlog status

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
 * Backlog drive

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
 * TIP – New school articles

There is a new template available,, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
 * Misc

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.


 * Reminders
 * Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
 * If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
 * To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
 * Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hemipenthes seminiger
Hi. Could you do me a favor and move Hemipenthes seminiger back to Hemipenthes seminigra? The genus is feminine, and ITIS has an incorrect spelling. This one is pretty straightforward. Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Gone ahead and moved. Shyamal (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Dyanega (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * All good :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)±

your revert on Neal Stephenson
While I have no real clue as to what you mean by "interesting case of an OR WL.." (Orwell?), the case is most interesting in that I am entirely convinced that Stephenson talked about just what the link "information wants to be free" you disliked points to. Or can you give me an alternative interpretation? -- Kku (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the WP:OR I was referring to. It's neither my nor your business to put a definite interpretation on the wording of a literal quote - and putting a wikilink in the middle of it is doing just that. Leave that to third parties, which we can then refer to. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Aha. Thanks for this insightful instruction. This way, language and quotations in particular both become useless instantaneously. But surely you are aware of that. Maybe you want to ponder the implications of your statement again, anyway. I would, however, still be interested in YOUR interpretation of the quoted part. -- Kku (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not much interested in trading sophistries with you, either. For the record I assume you are probably correct in your interpretation, but that's neither here nor there. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Teach me
Hey I’ve kinda gotten into an edit war with you, but you seem like a pretty cool person and I think we just got off on the wrong foot, I’m looking to amend relations with you and improve my editing capabilities. Could you look at the “hatchet” and “spiked smasher” portion of the stomatapod wiki under “claws” to see if my sources are adequate as well as the “green sunfish” “aquarium” portion as I added more sources. Thanks, I hope we can get off on the right foot this time! Realfakebezalbob (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello
Hello Elmidae! I saw you reverted my edit recently. If the case is about over referencing, I will lessen the reference. But I want to add some information because the species is endemic to Manipur. So, I was just putting it's Manipuri translation like every other articles used to do. Thanks! --Haoreima (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Dropping multiple random references to source one name, especially in a stub, especially in the very first line of that stub, makes the article hard to read and is generally regarded as WP:REFBLOAT. If required, please add one good source rather than multiple mediocre or superfluous ones. Also, in the case of Phoebe hainesiana, the name is already stated in the second sentence - with a dead source. I would suggest just replacing that source. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Good day, friend! :-) Haoreima (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022
Hello ,

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators and, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
 * Backlog status

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.


 * Coordination: and  have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out.  will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.


 * Open letter to the WMF: The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.


 * TIP - Reviewing by subject: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.


 * New reviewers: The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.


 * Reminders
 * Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
 * If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
 * To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message
Hi ,

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
 * Invitation

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP Award for 2020
Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2020. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are just getting caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply to let us know not to send you any more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP Award for 2019
Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2019. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are almost caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply to let us know not to send you any more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Article Review
Hi Elmidae this is Sams321, i have created article Acting Ka Bhoot did not review till now can you please review my article, that will appreciate me to create new articles 😊. Thank You Sams321 (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election
Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

NPP Award for 2018
Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2018. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We have just caught up with giving out deserved barnstars. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Raffles
Wow! Great job! Indeed be proud of that! :) I found the refence for Pusch, 1942, but I'm stymied on determining who Pusch is. I'm tracking my hunt at Talk:List_of_authors_of_names_published_under_the_ICZN. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * BHL is turning out to be very useful indeed. I did not know about that site before Plantdrew pointed me to it. Excellent resource... -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Canada goose
Hi there. Did you actually check the reference before you restored it? It's a grammar blog. Are blogs now considered a reliable source? Not only that, the blog clearly shows that the scholarly references – including the OED – all say that Canada goose is correct. The only ones who suggest that the "adjectival form" might be "more correct" (on grammar grounds alone) are grammarians. And they do not name birds! MeegsC (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * are you under the impression that there is some "official" source for common names of species? That is not the case. What we report is what is in use. Obviously "Canada goose" is the most commonly used variant, but the cited source does a perfectly suitable job of summarizing that "Canadian goose" is also used: The four standard dictionaries we’ve consulted, reflecting popular usage, list “Canada goose” as the common name for the North American bird, though two of them include “Canadian goose” as a variant usage. To whit: - we could put that in the lede if you prefer. It is also easy to find plenty of publications using the synonym, e.g. . This is well justified. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. I thought blogs weren't considered RS. Thanks! Good to know. MeegsC (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * well, they are certainly not the preferred type of source if more reliable stuff is available. We could use the direct Collins ref instead (or in addition - actually that might be advisable in any case). But I'd say that it is useful for the reader to have the entire discursive discussion there. The author does give sources, so it fulfills our more stringent sourcing requirements at one remove, so to speak. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello
Can you stop edit the page.I was try to improving the page.If I done I show you. DaikinInverter789 (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Please do so in draft or user space rather than producing these blanked ruins in mainspace. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022
Hello , Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to ), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also. Software news: and  have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved. Suggestions:
 * There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
 * Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
 * Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
 * This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog: Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!


 * Reminders
 * Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
 * If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Please delete permenently my uploaded pic on Aryan valley of Ladakh
Respected sir, I have uploaded a picture on Aryan valley of Ladakh which has been deleted by you from that page , But that pic is still available on wikipedia. Please delete it permenently. I want that pic name " arryan valley men dancing " pic to be deleted immediately as soon as possible Minaro123 (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Please delete these file below

I own these copyright and please delete these pic as soon as possible. I am felling nervous about my privacy. Minaro123 (talk) 09:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be surprised if you would have reason for any privacy concerns with that image, since it does not identify anyone? But in any case, the image is hosted not on Wikipedia, but on Wikimedia Commons. You can request deletion right on that page, in the sidebar under "Tools" (at the bottom). As uploader and with the image not in use anywhere, I think that will not be a problem.- Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Please don't delete the Aryan valley of Ladakh
I was worried that you had writen to another user and asking him to delete or Merge Aryan valley of Ladakh with Brokpa. The aryan valley of Ladakh is a geographical area here brokpa live and it has a thousand of year history as independent  kingdom and  it  was added into ladakh by a king of maharaja. Please have a patience ,i am looking for more reliable referencee about its geographical history. Please don't delete it or merge it ,please don't waste my lot of research and work Minaro123 (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Redirects
I saw those edits yesterday and looked into them but couldn't assess them as obviously wrong--it's not my field. I did look for some community interaction on it but found none. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is beyond disruptive, and I have no idea why an established user with a reasonable grasp of current consensus would try that. I have now rolled back the lot, as far as I can see, and left them a message. Away for half an hour or so. Let's see if this blows up any more than necessary. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * OK--thanks. I agree at least with the very principle of "hey y'all this is what I'm going to do." Looking at the ANI thread right now. Take care, Drmies (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll admit Elmidae, this editor has been a bit of a hair-pulling situation trying to interact with them, and you've been at it longer than I have. Independent of that, I agree with you that it might be time to formalize some guidelines, but maybe to revive something like MOS:ORGANISMS when it comes to taxonomy structure. I think one thing that's an evident need based on the ANI or AfD is explaining a little how taxonomy literature is structured and why species are inherently notable to those outside the subject area.
 * Drmies, since you're here, do you have any thoughts on how to get through to this editor on behavior? I recently had to post an update at the ANI on some edit warring that broke out at Bothriospilini as a bit of a microcosm of the behavior we're trying to navigate. Just odd double standards or not engaging unless teeth are pulled it seems, and lots of lashing out from just trying to get them to the talk page there. I'm like others at this point who've already vocalized they are drained trying to deal with the behavior side of this dispute. KoA (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ratifying MOS:ORGANISMS would be great but would require concerted effort by many people to pull off. Not being able to put in that time myself at this point, I am reluctant to suggest that others do. I think deriving a short SNG for species would be easier (still not a trivial undertaking). Let's see what comes out of the current AfDs.
 * Re BilledMammal, I'd file that under hamfisted but GF, and probably not worth escalation. What I really wouldn't want to see, in case the AfDs do not result in redirections, is them keeping at it with further species articles, as that would be heading into deliberately disruptive territory. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree on MOS:ORGANISMS overall being a heavy lift. Let me know if there's a good central place like WP:TOL that would be good to get people working on drafting something. It could be worth distilling down some ideas from there for the why or structure questions. I'm basically seeing the main sentence to put forward stating something similar to being a described recently extant species in reliable taxonomic sources is the threshold for notability with a sentence or two on why. That would be item 1. I only put in extant because I know there is more disagreement on species identified by fossils. I personally think all species should be included, but carving out recently living species may help lower the hurdle a little. That's language that could be tweaked with folks who are more familiar with that side of things though too.
 * A follow up question though is going to be what to do with the ranks above a given species. WP:MONOTYPICTAXON hints at that in that we go down to the lowest rank that has a single unique species and generally have articles ranks above. I don't know if that question also needs to be more thoroughly codified (maybe better to do one thing at a time), but I could see that question derailing a conversation on 1 too. At least if I was drafting something on that, I'd link Taxonomic rank and say that if a species has an article, all major ranks above it should have an article, though other ranks like tribe, etc. could be be up to discretion (unless this causes other issues). Overall though, it'd be good to mention how those ranks are handled in terms of article structure and that genus and sometimes family articles will often look more like list articles rather than full prose articles. That's maybe the widest swathe I'd take on these two questions though. I probably wouldn't propose something on this second one, but still be ready for it to come up. KoA (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Behavior
I don't know why you use slang languages against me. This wasn't the first time you did. If you have disagreements talk in a civil and mature way. Just because I added something without sources doesn't mean I'm "making shit up". This is false accusation. Another time you supported another users edit stating "He's your trusted and he knows what he's doing" (or something like that) even when he deleted sourced content which I tried to restore, but refuse to trust my edits every time. I don't know why you're always against me, if I've done anything to displease you, I apologize to you. I really do. I don't want any beef with anyone in the Internet, specially not in Wikipedia. As for the recent edit, the species I added, I did read about them in books and articles or watched in documentaries. I can still provide links of videos and weak sources but Wikipedia doesn't allow videos as evidence or articles of other languages. I removed them anyway since you and the other user complained about it. But to remove the species do you have to remove all the other edits I made? The other user also did the same, that's what I said, you don't need to do that. Ishan87 (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are adding material without sourcing, then how is any reader supposed to know whether that is trustworthy or not? Are they expected to divine that whoever added that read about it somewhere, or saw it on a show somewhere, or (and that is a justified supposition) you just made that shit up? They can't, and we don't want them to have to. That's why we have sourcing requirements, with which you should be well acquainted by now. If you don't want to be called out on this kind of thing, don't do it. If there are no suitable or only "weak" sources, resist the impulse to add the information. We want to be comprehensive, but it is much more important that we are verifiable . - Re the wholesale reverting, it's a bit of a tall order to mix, in the same edit, uncontroversial edits with stuff that is likely to get reverted, and then expect others to carefully tease them apart when they clean it up. I suggest making multiple smaller edits in such a case. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

What's up with your "non constructive" messages?
I was trying to edit pages that you improved and leaved the message "exclusively non-constructive, WP:POINTy, or trolling edits", especially on the pages Datum (disambiguation), Etymology (which I gave a message for after your improvement), and Purple heron. I never like this message; what were you trying to do with it? And also, why? Leave me a message soon. 2607:FEA8:FD04:8132:3085:9554:1F37:BF97 (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am quite aware that you didn't like the message, since you left a personal threat on my talk page that had to be revision-deleted and got your previous logged-out, detection-avoidance IP blocked. I have no interest in engaging in nitpicks with people who state that they want to kill me, whether that was just dumb bravado or actual malevolence. Stay off my talk page please. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Saiga antelope
RE: (Undid revision 1118619518 by Citizen127 (talk) not an improvement. "Species X from [period] of [location]" is standard phrasing to refer to "occurred in [location] during [period]"). Wikipedia is not a forum for technical speech by highly skilled and educated experts. It's intended for the general public. The sentence that you are defending, "Several species of extinct Saiga from the Pleistocene of Eurasia and Alaska have been named," is confusing to the general public. I am almost entirely certain that the general public is not very comfortable with the term "Pleistocene," and putting it in a position that is usually occupied by a geographic, or demographic modifier is confusing. For it to be understandable to the general public, there has to be a temporal qualifier. It was confusing to me when I first read it. I'm confident that it will be confusing to most others that read ❤️ Citizen127 (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Description on Giant Guitarfish
Hello Elmidae, I'm Tds018 and I've been contributing to the giant guitarfish article. Why did you exactly remove my content from the description? It may have been a lengthy amount, but I believe the Misidentification page was fundamental to article and you took out all my content. This article is for my biology project, and it genuinely means a lot to me. Thank you. Tds018 (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * please be aware that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia with a certain style and type of content. It can be used as an aid to university projects, but this is very much a secondary function that cannot at any time be more important than having a well-curated article. Taking that as a given: your material was simply far too expansive. You said exactly what is contained in that one condensed sentence, but you used ten times the verbiage for it. The idea of an encyclopedia article is to give a brief summary of the main points of a text source, accompanied by a soure that shows the reader where they can find the whole thing if they want it. You will not find a point-by-point distinction guide for any species on Wikipedia (and if you do, it's because nobody has gotten round to condensing it yet) because that's not what we are for. Summarize and link the reader to the complete item. In this case, where the entire book is freely available online, that goes double. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand, thank you for the clarification. Tds018 (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)