User talk:Herpetology2

Deletion discussion about Malcolm L. McCallum
Hello, Herpetology2,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Malcolm L. McCallum should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Malcolm L. McCallum.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Deunanknute (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Moved Page
I moved your page Herpetological_Conservation_and_BIology to Draft:Herpetological_Conservation_and_Biology. This way you can work on it without others editing tagging it. Also, please make sure to check capitalization, especially in article titles. Deunanknute (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing AfD template
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Malcolm L. McCallum. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I  Talk to my owner :Online 21:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

original research and Malcolm L. McCallum
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Your article Malcolm L. McCallum, while an interesting read, resembles more a piece of journalism than a fair and neutral article for Wikipedia's purpose. It appears to be building a narrative based mainly on primary or affiliated sources and synthesizing new conclusions not stated in sources, which is a violation of Wikipedia's policy of No original research. Please see also policies on Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view, and Verifiability. I removed some of your most obvious original research (i.e. material sourced to your own communication with McCallum), but more exists in subtler form, such as "McCallum demonstrated a high degree of productivity as a doctoral student...". Since the only reference backing this up is McCallum's Google Scholar page, this means you are claiming his productivity is high and noteworthy, which, even if I agree, must be explicitly stated by reliable sources. Similarly, unsubstantiated commentary like "the foremost expert on Arkansas herpetology" has no place unless you can cite reliable sources that state the same. Furthermore, in the interest of balance, and neutrality you must cite opposing views such as Ficetola's commentary, not swamp them with McCallum's view. Negative content is just as appropriate as positive content, in the aims of "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (WP:NPOV)

While I bear no ill will to the subject of the article, the tone of the article appears heavily like current article reads like a tribute to McCallum, going into intricate undue detail of mundane things that are either not explicitly stated in sources, only supported by McCallum's own papers, otherwise not noteworthy, or possibly your own interpretations. The best way to achieve neutrality is to rely more heavily on independent, secondary sources like newspaper and magazines articles. If those sources give very little discussion to the back story of every study, then probably neither should the Wikipedia article.

If you have additional questions, see the resources at the top of your talk page, or ask me on mine. Wikipedia has a lot of guidelines, policies, rules, and conventions, and there can be a learning curve to writing encyclopedic articles (see also WP:ISNOT), but the policies I mentioned above are the most important (they are in fact the Core content policies). I do not mean to criticize your intentions or belittle your contributions, but simply inform you of how articles, especially of living people, need to be constructed. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

response to above
questions for you.. 1) "..resembles more a piece of journalism than a fair and neutral article for Wikipedia's purpose." "It appears to be building a narrative based mainly on primary or affiliated sources and synthesizing new conclusions not stated in sources" response: working on this problem.  citations exist, but accumulating them is not completely easy as webpages and sources change or become unavailable.  I have some partial citations that I am attempting to obtain full corrections for.

2) "I removed some of your most obvious original research (i.e. material sourced to your own communication with McCallum), but more exists in subtler form, such as "McCallum demonstrated a high degree of productivity as a doctoral student...". Since the only reference backing this up is McCallum's Google Scholar page, this means you are claiming his productivity is high and noteworthy, which, even if I agree, must be explicitly stated by reliable sources" Response: I need to link the refernce that is already listed (citation ratings of herpetologists).

3) "Similarly, unsubstantiated commentary like "the foremost expert on Arkansas herpetology" has no place unless you can cite reliable sources that state the same." response: He is the author of Amphbians and Reptiles of Arkansas, and has the most publications on arkansas herpetology in in history.  I'ld say that is pretty much a slam dunk?  So, do I just reword it to state this?  Normally, the foremost authority in a field has the most and most important publications, and he has both?  IN fact, #2 is not even a close second.  I believe citing A&R of Ark is actually where the source is in the chap where it goes over Arkansas Herpetology. 4) Furthermore, in the interest of balance, and neutrality you must cite opposing views such as Ficetola's commentary, not swamp them with McCallum's view. Negative content is just as appropriate as positive content, in the aims of "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." response: Yes, I need to add in Ficetola's paper as a reference, and McCallum's response to it that was published as well. Ficetola makes claims that are based on poor understanding of the tools used, not based on reality. it was poorly peer reviewed! but that is my opinion! :) I'll get that stuff straitened out.  I started with this individual, and intend to add more prominent herpetologists.  But, I have a day job, so its been a little slow going this week!
 * You could state something like "has published widely on Arkansas herpetology", which would be more neutral and consistent with facts, and less likely to be challenged than superlatives like "foremost" (which may also be "peacock terms"). We as editors cannot infer things that have not been explicitly stated, no matter how obvious or how much personal knowledge we have: on Wikipedia that is orginal synthesis, i.e. combining multiple sources to reach a conclusion not stated in any individual source. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that! Keep these points in mind when revising or creating new articles. Keep also in mind WP:UNDUE, which means that not every thing published needs inclusion, even if verifiable. The secondary sources listed here would be ideal candidates for sources, much better than any CV or primary sources for providing context and balance. Cheers! --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. In case you want to review or retrieve any information I removed for rewrites, you can always review the Page History.
 * P.P.S. I slightly reformatted your responses for visual clarity and to nest with the previous paragraphs. For future reference you can indent by typing a colon at the beginning of a line, or make an indented bullet point by typing an asterisk. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!!! I actualy appreciate the edits. Most of yours will remain. I need to cull some of the current story anyway because sometimes things look better with less. :) Then its on to another herpetologist! Thanks again for your help.
 * No problem. You might also want to check out Help:Referencing for beginners for tips on formatting references. For journals and or books I like to use RefToolbar to automatically fill in info for a citation template (entering a doi or an ISBN autofills the fields), but again, primary sources (e.g. journal articles) written by the subject should be given less weight than secondary sources about the subject, per policy, as discussed in Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Cheers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:HCB Cover 1-2-2006.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:HCB Cover 1-2-2006.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:HCB Cover 1-2-2006.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:HCB Cover 1-2-2006.jpg, which you've attributed to http://herpconbio.org/volumes.html. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC) ==File permission problem with File:Participants at first organizational meetin of HCB get first view of the website and cover (left to right, Stan Trauth, Bruce Bury, Malcolm McCallum, Roger Luckenbach, Phil Medica, Ray Saumure, Dave Germano, and at computer Gwen Bury).jpeg== Thanks for uploading File:Participants at first organizational meetin of HCB get first view of the website and cover (left to right, Stan Trauth, Bruce Bury, Malcolm McCallum, Roger Luckenbach, Phil Medica, Ray Saumure, Dave Germano, and at computer Gwen Bury).jpeg, which you've attributed to http://herpconbio.org. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Uploading media
Please assume that everything posted on the internet is not free to post on Wikipedia, nor Commons, unless explicitly, verifiably stated otherwise. Permission to use media created by others must be proven (note: the OTRS system described above can be used to maintain anonymity for self-created media as well as record the permission of others). Except for the very limited scope of Non-free content, we can only accept images that either you yourself have created, and can thus freely license how you wish, or that are clearly labelled Public Domain, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or that otherwise allow remixing and commercial reuse without the consent of the creator. Thanks. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Herpetological Conservation and Biology
Hi. I'm not sure I understand your concern. The URL for the Wikipedia page (i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herpetological_Conservation_and_Biology) has to use underscores. Spaces are not permitted in URLs; this is a fundamental technological limitation for any website. Within Wikipedia, spaces are permitted in article titles, and articles can be linked with either spaces or underscores (e.g. both Herpetological_Conservation_and_Biology and Herpetological Conservation and Biology take you to the article).

As far as it showing up on Google, I'm getting the Wikipedia page as the 6th Google hit when searching for "Herpetological Conservation and Biology" and the 4th hit for "Herpetological_Conservation_and_Biology". Newly created Wikipedia pages don't show up on Google immediately, so it may be that Google has indexed the Wikipedia article since you last tried to search for it. The ranking for the Wikipedia article on Google is likely to go up over time, as more people access the page here.

If I'm misunderstanding your concern with the underscores, let me know, and I'll try to answer. Plantdrew (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

More resources for biographical articles.
Please see Notability (people) and Notability (academics). Like everything on Wikipedia, the emphasis is on "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as further explained in the General notability guidelines. Self-published, self-written, or other affiliated sources should be given much less prominence than third-party sources, which are much more likely to be objective, neutral, and balanced, even if they provide the same information. Cheers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, just in the event it may be applicable, do not create articles about yourself or your colleagues. That represents a major conflict of interest and hinders the goal of neutral, proportional coverage. You continue to pad articles with primary papers, unverified statements, and little to no secondary sources. If there are objective news, books, or magazine articles that cover someone's research, summarize and cite those views proportionally. See for instance how few of Cope's papers are cited in Edward Drinker Cope. Per policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. You may be used to the academic notion of focusing primarily on primary literature, but that is for novel ideas and synthesis, or arguing an opinion, none of which belong on Wikipedia. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I had citations in there as place markers for things I had to put in. Herpetology is my hobby, and I wanted to contribute something to it on wikipedia! :) (herpetology2)
 * Try this exercise before you add any new content or create any new articles: if you think a fact is noteworthy, look for third-party, unaffiliated source that say so. If you get the impression that someone is an expert in a field because they have been quoted in a report or have several citations, check for third party sources that say that, otherwise, don't say it. Otherwise we risk creating skewed or even false reputations of people, or minimizing their more widely recognized contributions while unduly highlighting some minor fact. Don't assume anything! Don't assume anything! Everything you write must be verifiable (Check your facts!). Small errors or large errors, subtle bias or large bias, can have real effects on the careers and personal lives of the subjects, which is why the Biographies of living persons policy is so important. See also Writing better articles for tips on refining articles. I would strongly recommend taking the time to assemble sources and improve the articles you've started before creating more. Cheers! --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Screen capture of Life in Cold Blood, The Land Invaders at the at 14 min mark where their study starts.png
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Screen capture of Life in Cold Blood, The Land Invaders at the at 14 min mark where their study starts.png, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC) --not a problem. I took the screen capture of the site, and I believe (or recall) that the BBC posted the movie. So, it is an image of the screen that happens to have a frame from the movie. IF that is not ok, then delete it. I understand! :) Thanks for your help! (herpetology2)
 * Assume everything on the internet or on TV is copyrighted unless stated otherwise. Also, File:Stan Trauth holding a Collard Lizard in th Ozarks.jpg (which is actually a horned lizard!) appears to be taken directly from his Trauth's website. similarly File:Bruce Bury.png is taken directly from Bury's page. If you did not take the original photographs, you cannot claim to be the copyright holder, and thus posting on Wikipedia may be copyright violations. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Screen capture of Life in Cold Blood, The Land Invaders at the at 14 min mark where their study starts.png


A tag has been placed on File:Screen capture of Life in Cold Blood, The Land Invaders at the at 14 min mark where their study starts.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Stan Trauth holding a Collard Lizard in th Ozarks.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Stan Trauth holding a Collard Lizard in th Ozarks.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC) As these were taken on my camera by someone else, what do I need to do to validate it? Can teh person send an email?


 * You or the copyright holder needs to fill out the form at WP:CONSENT, indicating all images, and email it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and afterwards add OTRS pending to the file(s). --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Stan Trauth with David Attenborough on the set of Life in Cold Blood in the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Stan Trauth with David Attenborough on the set of Life in Cold Blood in the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Bruce Bury.png
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bruce Bury.png, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Field Biology on the Caddo River Summer 2005.webm
Thanks for uploading File:Field Biology on the Caddo River Summer 2005.webm. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Goodfrog10.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Goodfrog10.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Deformed frogs.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Deformed frogs.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Jamie, Mal, and Sir David.7-31-06.2048.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Jamie, Mal, and Sir David.7-31-06.2048.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Walter E. Meshaka, Jr. ‎, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Joseph T. Collins) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Joseph T. Collins, Herpetology2!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Like other biography articles you've created, this one should up ease up on primary sources (interviews or Collins' own works) as well as praise from close friends. Let objective, impartial sources describe the man's notability!"

Learn more about page curation.

Joe Collins article
I too want to thank you for writing the WP article about Joseph T. Collins.

There are still several important herpetologists who don't have articles. Perhaps you'd like to write one about Carl Gans, Kraig Adler, or George Zug, to name a few. One of these days I plan to start one about Neil D. Richmond.

Keep up the good work! Lyttle-Wight (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I do plan to add them in. I actually started to do Adler one the other day, but got distracted by other things.  :) The rules on Wikipedia are kind of "difficult" because they define some things different from reality (just because you author a paper does not make it self-publishing for example, and scientific articles are unique in that they fall both as primary and secondary sources depending on their nature.  So, its tough!  The editors try to help, but sometimes its hard to deal with them because they are deleting stuff in the middle of your editing.  Further, there is obvious non-consensus among editors because I had a chain of edits by different people that literally formed a rosenkreist of sorts! ;)  Thanks again for the input!  Even some of them that had pages already are pretty sparse.

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Southern Leopard Frogs (Rana sphenocephala) from Southern Illinois with abnormalites of unknown causation.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Southern Leopard Frogs (Rana sphenocephala) from Southern Illinois with abnormalites of unknown causation.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited C. Kenneth Dodd, Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page State. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Stan Trauth gives mouth to nose to snapper.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Stan Trauth gives mouth to nose to snapper.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Stan Trauth holding a Horned Lizard in Utah.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Stan Trauth holding a Horned Lizard in Utah.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Salamandria


The article Salamandria has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable story, no references, no notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David M. Sever, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Canton and Eagle Scout. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Goodfrog10.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Goodfrog10.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Mdann52 (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

COI Notice
Have you reviewed the Wikipedia policies on Conflict of Interest editing? Please do so. Basically, you're prohibited from editing articles that you have a direct pecuniary interest in, or which involve or are about people you may know or be connected to personally in any way that might prevent you from being neutral--or might reasonably cause anyone else to think that you might not be neutral. In other words, generally:


 * Do not write articles about yourself or friends, family, business associates, students, enemies, etc.
 * Do not write articles about their business ventures (profit or nonprofit).
 * Avoid linking to their websites.
 * Avoid citing yourself, friends, students, family, business associates, etc.
 * Do not use Wikipedia to attempt to create publicity for anyone, any thing, or any cause.

Note that nothing in this rule requires anyone to actually identify themselves, and nobody is asked to, however it does require common sense and restraint from editing in some subject areas.

Your contributions are remarkably promotional in tone and frequently of only trivial interest, , ("obliterated their arguments"). Also, you have said that you communicate with some of these article subjects by text message which is enough in itself to warrant your recusing yourself from this area.

As a fellow editor (non-admin) I must ask that you refute my accusations convincingly (I don't see how) or voluntarily refrain from any further edits related to Malcolm L. McCallum and the articles of associated herpetologists, journals, and herpetological organizations where you appear to have a COI. Geogene (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I see that you are reverting most of Geogene's edits to Malcolm L. MacCallum - can you clarify what you mean in this edit summary? Where/when was this information "approved by administrators?" Also, please avoid labeling edit's like 's as "vandalism" - he was clearly just trying to improve the article and make sure that it was consistent with wikipedia's guidelines. Even if you disagree with his actions, it's very important to assume good faith. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Geogene (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion pending for File:Malcolm with rooster.jpg
Hello, Herpetology2. Some time ago, a file you uploaded &mdash; File:Malcolm with rooster.jpg &mdash; was tagged with OTRS pending, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.


 * If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.


 * If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This was taken care of months ago when teh owner of the photo donated it to the wiki commons. I have a series of emails indicating this. Could removal of the tag have been missed? Permission was sent Feb 8, 2015 by Malcolm McCallum who donated the photo. Permission was confirmed by Wikipedia on May 10, 2015 to Malcolm McCallum who forwarded it to me. However, the person doing this for wikipedia indicated they were exhausted from aswering emails. So, maybe they forgot to remove the tag. I contacted the owner and asked him to resubmit the the permissions statement and he indicated that he responded to the wikipedia permissions email this morning and confirmed the dates of the previous exchanges. Herpetology2 (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia
I want to follow up on the discussion that started at COIN. Bottom lines:
 * We really value subject matter experts in Wikipedia.
 * Experts face challenges when they come to edit Wikipedia. Working here is not like anything else you have done in your life.  Everyone is equal, and there is a labyrinth of policies and guidelines (PAG) that govern what we write, how we write it, and how we treat each other.  Almost every new editor has a learning curve to understanding the spirit and letter of PAG and the norms here.  That learning curve can sometimes be steeper for experts, as they have a hard time acknowledging that they are not expert in how Wikipedia works.  (Please do read our essay to help experts get oriented: WP:EXPERT)
 * You have extensive and thoughtful feedback from four experienced editors at COIN and more elsewhere -- all volunteers who took time out of their lives to try to help you. So far you have ignored all of us, which is just... sad.
 * You have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, from recognizing that you are a "newbie", and learning how this place works from other, more experienced editors. To the extent that you want to stick around (and I hope you do), you have a lot to lose, by being defensive and refusing to acknowledge that you have a lot to learn.

So...are you willing to learn or not? Please reply here - I am watching this page. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of R. Bruce Bury


A tag has been placed on R. Bruce Bury requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://herpconbio.org/Volume_7/Monographs/Lovich_etal_2012.pdf. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Randykitty (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Christopher T. McAllister


The article Christopher T. McAllister has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable academic per WP:SCHOLAR or WP:BIO. Article bloated with personal details that suggests strong conflict of interest.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Christopher T. McAllister for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christopher T. McAllister 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/Christopher T. McAllister until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

McCallum
Hello. Just a friendly reminder to please review all the previous discussions on your talk page regarding your edits to Malcolm L. McCallum and other herpetologist articles. Your edits continue to be nearly entirely regarding McCallum, or inserting the works of McCallum into other articles. Your behaviour thus suggests a single purpose account (SPA). Wikipedia is not a place for promotion or advocacy. Please also review the the 2015 conflict of interest discussion: even if you have no personal or professional connection, it appears your primary purpose here is still to promote McCallum. Additional suspicious behaviour may warrant eventual sanctions. I recommend you first propose edits on the Talk page of articles for any content regarding McCallum. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 04:07, 8 January 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)