User talk:HodgePodge1765

March 2013
Hello, I'm Arctic Kangaroo. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Edaphodon hesperis, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Arctic   Kangaroo  07:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Edaphodon hesperis with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Arctic  Kangaroo  08:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm Amaury. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Cape Fur Seal, with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Amaury (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Amaury (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Amaury (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Article titles
Please stop moving articles without first getting a consensus. Scientific binomials are commonly used for the title of taxa with many vernacular names, or where the binomial is more commonly used int eh literature then rare vernacular names. -- Kev min  §

All the vernacular names are quite common, and people identify a species by its vernacular name such as "Pink Salmon" instead of calling it an "Oncorhynchus gorbuscha". And I'm very sorry about the moving of articles, I'm quite new to the Wikipedia community and I am sure you have been here for a while, so thank you for correcting my mistakes. I'm still trying to figure out all the editing templates and techniques so I assure you I will try not to do this again. Let me explain my I moved these articles; when making an article on something such as "pink salmon", you don't want to make the title of the article the scientific binomial, right? So when an article has the scientific binomial as the title, I try to move the article and get a different name for the title since it's preferred that you put a vernacular name.

And also I was looking at the edits you made, why were you reverting my edits back to things that needed to be fixed in the first place? When I added "Flathead knob-scaled lizard" after the scientific binomial "Xenosaurus platyceps" you deleted it to show nothing after it. What was the point of that? Why didn't you also delete the vernacular name "Mexican knob-scaled lizard" after "Xenosaurus grandis"?
 * We are not talking about living taxa that are often seen and talked about by laypeople though. Your edits have been to extinct taxa that are not well known outside the scientific literature.  Why do you try to avoid binomial or generic names for extinct taxa though, the few vernacular names that may be out there are not more common in the literature then the scientific names.  They are at the name that they are referred to most often already.  if you have reliable references that show "Flathead knob-scaled lizard" is an actual vernacular name, then add the reference along with the name to the article.-- Kev  min  § 08:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that because a taxa is exctinct, it isn't well known by modern people? You believe that people have never heard of wooly mammoth or saber-toothed cat just because it isn't extant? And with "Flathead knob-scaled lizard", it is the most common vernacular name out there, just look it up on the internet. Here are a few reliable sources:  Plus, it specifically states in the article "Article titles" by Wikipedia that you should use common names instead of scientific alternatives for a title of an articcle. Even though an animal that is extinct such as the "American mountain deer" and is lesser known to humans, shouldn't be titled "Odocoileus lucasi" on an article because people can't visually think of anything when they hear that (unless you have a knowledge of extinct taxa and such)


 * The guideline say to use the most commonly used name, regardless of if it is vernacular or scientific. Thus yes, most extinct taxa are better known, in reliable sources by the scientific name.  WP:COMMONNAME does not say use common names instead of scientific names, its says use the most often seen name in reliable sources, and to follow specific conventions where they are found, such as WP:flora guidelines.-- Kev  min  § 06:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What determines if the name is more popular? I'm not going to look up and count every reliable source that refers to a taxa as its scientific binomial and compare it to a source that refers the taxa to its vernacular name.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Xenosaurus grandis.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Xenosaurus grandis.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)