User talk:Fredwerner/archive/archive Dec 2007

Jamdonut
I didn't. I'm screwing with him. :P --Golbez 19:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, Yamla never blocked Jamdonuts. --Golbez 03:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, she UNblocked him. Someone else had to block him earlier for him to need Yamla to unblock him.Fredwerner 04:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He was blocked because his IP had been used by someone else who was blocked; this usually means collateral damage and is a common and justified reason to unblock. So don't be too mean to Yamla for it. --Golbez 04:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Coffee
Hi Fred, we haven't met, but we corresponded by email when I was working on my MS thesis in Coto Brus back in 2003. It seems you're rather new to the Wikipedia world but have already made a lot of great contributions. I just want to say I actually think you're being a bit too polite over at the coffee articles. There are no editors who are actively engaged in improving any of them at the moment so you won't step on any toes (and even if you do, who cares?), so I suggest you be bold and start adding referenced content wherever you have it to add. Improving/expanding the coffee of articles has been on my personal "to do" list for quite some time, but who knows when I might get to it! I made some suggestions in response to your posts at the Coffee in the global economy talk page.

BTW, have you ever found a recent primary or secondary source for the statement about coffee being the third most valuable commodity? The common myth, as you probably know, is that it's second. Back in 2004/05 I spent literally days trying to track that claim to a primary source--and all the reference chains, no matter where they started, traced back to sources from the mid-1980's. There was nothing recent--and as you know the price of coffee declined precipitously in the early 1990's, so it's impossible to use late 1980's data and say it's the same today. I did learn from the FAO Trade database that coffee was seventh among only agricultural products in 2003. So I'd be very interested in seeing a current reference listing it as third worldwide--not that I don't believe you, but only because it has been so utterly maddening trying to find any reliable, current source for global commodity statistics. In any case, once a current secondary source has been identified, it would be really useful to date the statement, since commodity markets do change so rapidly (e.g. "In 2006 coffee was..." rather than "Coffee is...")

Anyway, welcome!--Margareta 02:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Coffee and the environment
I believe I have fixed your problem. But you'd better check, in case I messed something else up. FJPB 17:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The change I made (see Talk:Coffee and the environment was to close the REF tag, XML-style (i.e. slash before the >). If you look closely at the diff page, you can see the slash, last character but one in the "here's the difference" bit.

You had left it open, which caused everything after it to be treated as content of the REF element (just as the first REF element includes everything between its opening and closing tags). Then, since there was no REFERENCES tag visible (it was enclosed in the REF element), there was nowhere to display the content.

If you're still in the dark, I'll try to explain further. But there's a good write-up at Footnotes. FJPB 07:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Introduced birds
Thank you for your updates to List of introduced bird species. However, I am curious as to why all of those links were deleted when clearly the precedent on the page was for links to remain. Either someone will now have to go through the whole article removing secondary links, an arduous task, or the links in Psittacidae which you removed should be reinstated. It is clearly impractical to expect people to travel all the way up a page when they could more easily click on the link provided. If you've no objections (I'll wait a few days), I'll reinstate the links. Frickeg 06:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Frickeg 23:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:BARTSystemMap.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:BARTSystemMap.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Invasive species
Hello there, I noticed that you recently added a merge template to the invasive species page suggesting it be merged with introduced species, however I can't find any section where you specify why the two articles should be merged. Invasive species are not necessarily introduced, and introduced species are not necessarily invasive, so I think there is scope for two separate articles, especially given the length of the invasive species article. If the two were to be merged, they would have to go under a title which they both fitted into - perhaps non-indigenous species, which would include species whether they were invasive or not, and introduced by humans, other animals or other means such as wind and floating icebergs. Please put foward your case at Talk:Invasive species. Richard001 03:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Your MoS edit
Would it be useful to add just the link? (Naming_conventions_(fauna))? I reverted your paragraph because it appeared to add nothing new, except perhaps for the link. Tony 05:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, the link was there already (although not quite as specific a link). Um ... I'm concerned about singling out ornithological societies (are they "academic"?), and wonder whether some WPians will dispute their status and their determination on capitalisation. What about this:


 * Common (vernacular) names have been a hotly debated topic, and it is unresolved whether the common names of species start with a capital. As a matter of truce, both styles are acceptable (except for proper names). Some WikiProjects have decided on their own rules for capitalization. Where used in an article title, a redirect from the alternative form is created.

But that still leaves the status of those WikiProject rules in question (a propos the MOS, which states immediately before this that "both styles are acceptable". This issue was also present in your edit.

What to do? Tony 05:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I still find your addition problematic; it takes up a lot of space, to start with. But that's not all. I wonder whether you could paste your proposal into the talk page and ask for feedback there. Also see. Tony 08:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So does including that info about the Bird Wikiproject mean that the MOS is endorsing it (and thus FAs must follow it, but not other Wikiproject determinations on initial caps)? It's unclear, which is why I don't like including the example unless it explicitly says Wikiproject determinations on this issue should be followed. Don't like it. All or none. Tony 03:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Bird migration
Nice cleanup! You've improved the flow nicely... :) MeegsC | Talk 23:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)