User talk:Iloveparrots

Glossary of bird terms
Hey Iloveparrots. Really glad to see someone else interested in the bird glossary! (It is by far the featured content I am most proud of [and into which I have invested more time than any other single article I've worked on]). Really good catch regarding the rose-breasted cockatoo! By the way, your sensibility about providing attribution when you took content from the feather-plucking article was spot on (huge numbers of new users casually infringe without the slightest thought of providing credit), so I'm sorry to even sound like I'm being at all critical, but copyright is extremely technical in its details (and an area I focus on in my administrative edits). Here, the WMF's interpretation of the [dual] copyright licenses that our content is released under, is that proper attribution requires the posting of an accessible link in the edit summary (i.e., by using  Feather-plucking ). Please see Copying within Wikipedia. You can easily fix the attribution using a dummy edit (specifically, see the section on that page starting with "Repairing insufficient or absent copyright attribution..."). Please feel free to drop by my talk page anytime, for any reason. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey man. Thanks for the kind words and feedback. I've done the dummy edit as you suggested. I think. Was that okay?


 * I put something on the talk page about the neck fan, as seen on the red-fan parrot. Do you happen to know anything about that? It may be a unique feature to a single species. I'm not entirely sure... --Iloveparrots (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You did it perfectly (I already knew that based on the "clue" in your edits as a new user, you're not someone who needs a lot of hand holding). I will respond to your neck fan query at the talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I've copyedited the entry from the feather plucking article. It turns out that there they mis-cited the author names in one of the sources (see here) – I've fixed that in both places. (I'm not so sure about the reliability of the Beauty of Birds web source taken from there btw).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'm still not sure how to use those citation templates without breaking things (wasn't me that added the thing you fixed). I thought there was a bot that came through every so often and added them if you just used the URL? I think I've seen that in page histories? --Iloveparrots (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey again. Well, just to put to in perspective, I would say citing sources—reliable, secondary, independent sources—is everything here. They are the lifeblood and scaffold for all article content. They demonstrate notability; verify content; show you're not engaging in original research; and their manner of use underlies writing from a neutral point of view. The four links in the last sentence are most of our core policies/guidelines, and just about everything else is window dressing. The glossary is a featured article, so it's important when you cite sources that you provide pretty transparent, full attribution. I know you imported the existing content, but using content that has a naked external link as its cite should be modified to make the citation attribution better. As a little primer:
 * 1) What will be shown in the references section is what you include in the text between ref tags, opening with:  , which display where you place them in the text as a footnote ;
 * 2) all the sourcing templates are in the form (spacing is irrelevant to the output):
 *  ;
 * 3) The main sourcing templates to use are (depending on what the source is): Cite Web; Cite Book; Cite magazine Cite journal;
 * 4) Each one of those templates has, at its linked pages above, documentation for its use;
 * 5) Which parameters to use (which are always lowercase, e.g., url= or publisher=; never Url= or Publisher= etc.) depends on the template, the source, and the context. But most of its somewhat commonsensical:
 * 6) Citing a web page? Tell the read the url, the author(s) if provided, the title, the publisher; the date; the accessdate;
 * 7) Citing a book? The title, author(s), publisher; page involved, ISBN number.
 * So, for example, I took the content you imported, that included this naked url citation:
 *  
 * And changed it to this (I've truncated the url below just to make it easier to read, and inserted spaces to make the different parts more easy to see with the eye):
 *  
 * See more at Help:Referencing for beginners, Help:Introduction to referencing, and Citing sources, (among about a million other pages devoted to helping users understand use of citations).
 * Does that help?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I'd been trying it but I'd been getting a bunch of red text errors popping up. I just added something else to the Glossary using the cite web template. Seems to be okay from what I can see... --Iloveparrots (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: Amazon parrot
Hi Iloveparrots! Thanks for your additions and edits to the Amazon parrot article. I pared down the paragraphs you added about yellow-naped amazons' vocalisations, because imo that is too detailed and species-specific for the page, which is for the entire genus of 30+ species. After your additions, two out of three paragraphs were about yellow-naped amazons, which seemed a little unbalanced. I have kept some, and people who're interested will likely follow the link to the yellow-naped amazon's own page.

If you do find out more about other amazons' species-specific vocalisations, you can add them to the article; I personally think it's best if you keep those additions similarly succint to how yellow-naped amazons' vocalisations are currently described on the page. Kind regards, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse &#124; fings wot i hav dun 13:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

August 2021
Hello, I'm SunDawn. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. SunDawn talk  07:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * What was wrong with it? I was asking a question about parrot behavior at the Reference Desk? --Iloveparrots (talk) 08:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry! I thought it is on Article space instead of Wikipedia space. I will strike out my warning. Cheers! SunDawn  talk  10:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with Domesticated Animals, care to help more?
Specifically, if you could take a look at the deletions I've been doing, and appropriately adjust any of the bird-related ones you can speak to, it would be very helpful. I don't want to delete something that does rightly belong on the list (that is, is captive bred and kept as a pet), but I also don't want it cluttered up with a bunch of animals that *aren't* captive bred. Tamtrible (talk) 21:47, 11 August 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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions!
I've noticed you make lots of smart and constructive edits, especially on bird stuff. Appreciate it! Keep up the good work. jengod (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Great work on that gull eggs article by the way - found that one to be interesting reading. Iloveparrots (talk) 06:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Duh-Duh, duh-duhn, duhn dhuna-duhhnn
Ok, so, I'm more responsible than anyone for letting that discussion sidetrack into WP:NOTAFORUM territory, so I gotta chill: I only let loose like that once every few years here, but even so, don't want to feel like a hypocrite when I point out the space should stay focused on inquiries for sources. So I thought we should bring the discussion here, and even then keep it somewhat brief. So let's both splurge our appreciation for that show in a completely undignified display of nerdiness released from the closet, and then go find a Star Trek article to improve together so we can say to ourselves with a straight face it was related to editing. :P

Yeah, that show is great. I think, without question The Next Generation was the more important show, and certainly the most influential, but if there's a show in the franchise that basically matches or even excedes it's general level of quality of storytelling, it's Deep Space Nine. You're right in describing it as about as grave and grounded.....as Star Trek show could be. Which of course is a very big asterisk, but I never felt that the idea was that the creators were seeking for it to be dark--rather it was just that they were willing to allow things to be complicated and heavy, in ways which were good in their own right but also stood in stark contrast the show immediately previous. But really it's just that structurally everything about the show worked: the scripts were polished, especially the dialogue, similar to Next Generation; the acting is phenomenal, both every member of the principle cast (ok, took Alexander Sidig a season or too to settle), and an absurdly large and consistently good collection of supporting character actors; both the special and practical effects and every aspect of the production design just worked and created the impression of a consistent, lived-in world like no show in the franchise had previously done as well (and maybe since); great direction; a willingness to explore long-form story-telling in a way that was pretty bold at the time for a show in its medium and genre; just the right amount of humor to keep the whole thing from getting too relentlessly grim (or worse, too self-serious); characters that continuously grow and change, and have a consistently compelling path, with complex relationships between them. Avery Brooks attacking every line like you could only get from Avery Brooks, and only after a white guy told him he had to have hair. I mean, it just all came together.

True, it's not like Next Generation, where, if I were to create a short list of five candidates for the best sci-fi show of all time, that show is definitely on it. I don't think I can honestly say the same for Deep Space Nine, but almost without exception, I can watch almost anyway episode of that show and be enjoying myself. Although it does raise the point that the show did not exactly stick the landing. Still, easily one of the top two Star Treks shows that should not be missed, and it's not even a close call with any other show except Next Generation. S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 23:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Coordinated bird warfare
From European rock pipit: Males will sometimes enter an adjacent territory to assist the resident in repelling an intruder, behaviour only otherwise known from the African fiddler crab. I thought this was interesting in light of your question on the science ref desk ten days ago. Card Zero (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Cool - thank you very much for that! Iloveparrots (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Gull eggs as food
Hello, Iloveparrots

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username EggRoll97 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect Gull eggs as food, created by you. Your comments are welcome at.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

EggRoll97 (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)