User talk:Informaticz


 * }

Philippine Eagle

 * Sorry but I never compared them or their growth rate to mammals birds are totally different from mammals they don't have wings or feathers. Female Philippine eagles are probably the longest extant eagle and the 112 cm long specimen from the FMNH was not a an over size as you claimed as I have said the tail alone could reached almost 20 inches long remember? and you said that the longest on record to you was 17 inches? (probably that was a male eagle) here's the reference which I uploaded; the pictures and details of the book...link Hence a 500 mm Tail is = 50 cm or 19.6850 inches long which is "almost 20 inches"! Although there was no available measurement of length on the data (I also have previously posted the pictures from the Carnivora-forumlink just to show you how really BIG this specie besides a human which you could at least calculate and don't worry IF some of those pictures were subject to copyright law which Carnivoraforum has allowed But there's nothing I could do about it, I can only post their website for reference purposes..(you can always delete them anyway) which I hope you could have appreciated those awesome pictures.

regards, Informaticz (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2011(UTC) -
 * I appreciate your explanation But The 12.3 kg Harpy Eagle and the 112 cm Phil. Eagle has no correlation at all they are two different cases; weight is the easiest thing that could achieved or lose by animals wild or captive unlike the length or height."Jezebel" being a overweight captive Harpy eagle confined in a small enclosure and well-fed, while the 112 cm Philippine eagle was taken from the wild, It wouldn't change it's length-size drastically in span of just a few weeks in captivity unless you can prove it otherwise? female Philippine eagles are probably the longest extant eagle though there are some sites saying that a female Wedge-tailed eagle also reached 110 cm long, like the one in Davao in 2006 which was measured at 8 kg and 110 cm long, Female Philippine eagles normally ranges a meter tall and 100 cm to 110 cm in length or even longer, with just 2 cm difference +/- The 112 cm specimen of FMNH is no extraordinary length-size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  Informaticz  (talk • contribs)  07:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

-
 * Sorry but I am not convinced on what you are saying that the 112 cm long had grew significantly longer than the eagles in the wild because it was a captive bird.. Female normally ranges from 1 meter to 110 [|link]"(do remember that growth rates in birds and mammals are fundamentally different)" show some proof studies or data that a captive Philippine eagle or birds in particular would change it's biological features in size significantly for short period of time. As I have said you cannot correlate the case of "jezebel" the overweight captive Harpy eagle to the 112 cm long Philippine eagle, the animals weight can be easily gained or lose weather It's a wild or a captive animals unlike the Physical dimensions such as height and length they cannot be easily change. Quote:"Frankly, I have no intention of wasting my time by repeating myself over and over again"Unquote So am I... and you also said that you are a very busy person according to your note in (your My talk page) funny thing is...you always have the time to edit this page?!Informaticz (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

--- I only thought it was fair I replied to you, since you, repeatedly, failed to read my comments, asked questions that I already had dealt with earlier, removed sections with supporting references, added unreliable sources with extensive copyright violations, and made unsupported claims. Hence the previous comment where I specifically directed you to places where answers could be found (instead of writing the entire answers again), but I see that did not help you, as you made the same mistakes again! I had also assumed you had a reasonable background level in biology and at least a basic level of knowledge of growth rates, but I see that was a mistake, since you repeat your incorrect assumptions on growth rates in birds based on how it is in mammals (which are no more comparable than mammals and crocodiles; from a phylogenetic point of view, birds are actually closer to crocodiles than mammals). • Rabo³  • 12:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC) -
 * Your talk page is becoming utterly confusing; I have now signed your previous comments (so it is clear what parts were said by you), but please do consider signing your posts in the future (if you write ~ it is signed automatically; WP:SIGHOW). Frankly, I have no intention of wasting my time by repeating myself over and over again: On size (→ see comment from 5 May; if you had checked references provided previously, you'd also see that the large female Phil. Eagle wasn't "just a few weeks in captivity"; do remember that growth rates in birds and mammals are fundamentally different); on your continued removal of high quality references and the information they support (→ comment from 10 May); on your –still– unsupported claims of "normal size" of Phil. Eagle (→ comments 5 and 10 May); on your addition of links to carnivoraforum in the article, a highly unreliable source and a page filled with photo copyright violations (→ comments 5 and 10 May). • Rabo³  • 11:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

-
 * Although I do appreciate the effort, returning to an old version without any references for the measurements is not a possibility. That would arguably have been possible if no references were present in the newer version of th e page, but that is not the case here. Wikipedia is not about personal opinions or what we believe is correct, but about what high quality references say (WP:V). The references provided for the measurements are not minor references or some random webpage/blog, but the primary resources for raptors, i.e. at the very top of WP:RS, and they are based on the largest collections in the world (as explained in the comment at the bottom of this talk page). In an earlier comment you mentioned you had a reference to back up your claims ("110-112 cm is normal"), and, assuming it is of a high quality (see previous WP:RS link), I do urge you to add it to the article if/when you find it. If you know where it is, but you have been unable to access it again, feel free to forward the author(s) and name of book/article to me and I'll get it (I have access to a major scientific library, which has most, and can get the things they do not have). To sum it up, there are two major problems with the Haribon reference:
 * A total sample size of just 3; essentially useless from a statistical point of view.
 * 1 individual had measurements that were far higher than those provided anywhere else, suggesting it was abnormally large.
 * When you combine a very small sample size with an outlier the average will by default be unreliable. To deliberately withhold this information is inexcusable and would be to misrepresent the facts. This is why it is important to single out both the 12.3 kg Harpy Eagle and the 112 cm Phil. Eagle. • Rabo³  • 06:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

-                                                        You Kept changing my post! you're saying that the Philippine eagle is up to 102 cm and yet you were using the FMNH data as the basis which in fact the 102 cm is just the AVERAGE length of the eagle linkand looking at the records the female eagles could reached 110-112 cm in length from the tip of the bill to the longest tail feathers.(110-112 cm NOT just from FMNH also frrom other site)I will give them to you later)the 110-112 cm is still in normal range believed it; the tail alone could reached almost 20 inches in length.see foto

Quote: "there seem to be some confusion about "natural history". Natural history includes a wide variety of matters, and in some cases include observations based on captives. This is not entirely relevant here, however, but it seems you believe that a word in the name of a museum strictly limits what they keep, which is incorrect like most–if not all–major natural history collections around the world, have both specimens that originate from captivity and from the wild, and the reference specifically says this specimen was from Brookfield Zoo." Unqoute

FYI; NOT with this specie my friend NOPE! the Philippine eagle is a very rare specie and nobody ever held them in captivity outside the Philippines during those early years of 1950's and I assure you those specimen from the FMNH were taken from the wild and NOT a captive birds as you always insist, KNOW WHY?! notice the fact that that Philippine eagle male specimen used in the experiment are all Immature or young male eagles and came from different sources... and where do you think those eagles from the zoo came from??? they bought them to a breeder? '''obviously they were taken from the wild. ''' I have contributed many things on this page .. you can check them out and verify the facts and sources that I have used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informaticz  (talk • contribs) 05:02, 5 May 2011(UTC)
 * Consider doing your homework before making such blunt statements, especially when so easily proven wrong. See the reference that was provide in the earlier post (below), which has accounts of several that were kept in zoos in the 1950s. The reference you insist on using for the size also clearly says it was from a zoo. Basically, you insist that the part (size) of the reference that fits you is correct, but the part that doesn't (from zoo) is wrong! If you had read the entire wiki article for the Philippine Eagle you would also know that the longest certainly documented life of a Philippine Eagle is based on a captive and if you had checked its reference you would see that captive lived in Rome Zoo in 1934-1976. I have now added a bit more about the zoo history of this species to the section Relationship with humans. It is irrelevant if they were born in captivity and nobody has claimed that. The article specifically says "had been kept in captivity", not "was bred in captivity" (search growth rate birds in google scholar if you're not familiar with this matter). The fact that you insist on using average based on a sample of 3 birds, of which one is far larger than reported anywhere else, is puzzling; especially when data based on several larger institutions exist. It is evident that you did not really read the earlier comment (below) and I can only suggest you do so. Please do not forget to check WP:NPOV. You claim that 110-112 cm is a normal, but the evidence you claim supports this will only be provided later and this if followed by a comment that I should believe it! I look forward to seeing that high quality publication, but until then that is nothing but an unsubstantiated claim (WP:V) or original research (WP:OR). This is not allowed on wikipedia. The exact same can be said about your claim of the 20 inch tail. The only photo that potentially could be of use would be one taken next to a ruler (having checked the photobucket account where the photo you linked to is hosted, beware that sources with extensive copyright violations never should be used→WP:COPYLINK). Regardless, no one but you had made any claims on an exact tail length. Based on the primary sources for raptors (see below post), the only documented is 42 - 45.3 cm. Finally, regarding the last sentence in your comment – you may well have contributed many good things to wikipedia and no one has claimed otherwise. • Rabo³  • 15:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

-

Granting that It was kept for several weeks in the zoo's in the 1950's.. I think it wouldn't be enough to altered or change it's biological features and grow significantly in length for just a few weeks? probably in weight yes like 'jezebel'... otherwise The over-weight female harpy eagle (jezebel) would probably be the largest eagle in the world! which would have been grew longer and taller than the 112 cm long female Philippine eagle specimen of FMNH unless you can prove it?! female Philippine eagles are really long as I have told you the 102 cm was just an average length with reference to Haribon Foundation data; Those at the zoo's were not bred in captivity only in 1992 when (PEF) Philippine Eagle Foundation successfully bred the first Philippine eagle in captivity named PAG-ASA meaning Hope; and as recorded It's the world's first; even if they were captive (zoo's)I think they wouldn't change its natural biological features that fast considering it's a very short time, yes they would probably live longer than the birds in the wild because they are well fed and kept and there are no potential threat like predatory attack from other animals in the wild. About the photo It was mine using my account in Photobucket and this is just a matter of discussion using 'my talk' So I think there is nothing violated. Sorry! I cannot recall or find the site of the 110 cm long Phileagle it was way back in 2006-2007 that is why I said I will give it to you later. I will also get back to you about the almost 20 inches long tail of the eagle, I will get the name and author, page of the book. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informaticz  (talk • contribs) 12:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC) -- I certainly do understand your interest in the amazing Philippine Eagle, but I would strongly urge you to follow WP:NPOV and WP:RS. First, and I am sure this is just a misunderstanding, FMNH also have collections that do not fall under natural history, such as their geological and anthropological collections, incl. the exhibits on gems and Ancient Egypt. Using the same logic, FMNH only has animals from fields, because "F" is an abbreviation of field (Marshall Field;-)). FMNH, like most–if not all–major natural history collections around the world, have both specimens that originate from captivity and from the wild, and the reference specifically says this specimen was from Brookfield Zoo (should you need more details, feel free to ask, as I do have access to the FMNH specimen database; for example, FMNH 213208 did originate from Davao Gulf, Mindanao as stated on haribon's page, but this individual was also kept in Brookfield Zoo for a period before it died and was deposited at FMNH on 28 February 1952). An account of all the Philippine Eagles that have been kept in North American and European zoos, including the large specimen now at FMNH, can be found in an article in International Zoo News vol. 47/8 (305) from 2000. Secondly, please do keep in mind that 1 is irrelevant from a statistical point of view, i.e. what 1 measures says nothing about the normal size range. With only 1 above the measurement usually provided it could simply be aberrant (similar to the 12.3 kg Harpy Eagle mentioned in the wiki article for that species). Keep in mind that the usual measurements provided for raptors (at least non-US and non-European species) largely are based on the work by Leslie Brown and Dean Amadon (authors of e.g., Eagles, Hawks, and Falcons of the World from 1968), Jean-Marc Thiollay (author of e.g., Hawks and Eagles chapter in Handbook of the Birds of the World from 1994), and James Ferguson-Lees and David Christie (authors of e.g., Raptors of the World from 2001), which in turn have based most of their measurements on specimens at AMNH, MNHN and BMNH. This is of some importance, as BMNH has the largest collection of specimens in the world, MNHN the second largest, and AMNH the largest in the Americas. This is where numbers become important: 1 at FMNH does not somehow overtrump the other measurements, and could be an abberant given that no other authority has provide a measurement above 102 cm for the Philippine Eagle. Until someone provides measurements above 102 cm for another specimen, the most logical conclusion is that the 112 cm specimen at FMNH is not normal. To summarize: While I know "largest" is always a big discussion point in animals, we only have one option on wiki and that is to follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV, which means that we provide the measurements that virtually every authority provides, but mention that the measurements of a single specimen that had been kept in a zoo was quite a bit larger. Regards, 62.107.209.192 (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Eagles
You are welcome to participate in a discussion about eagles on the WP Bird talk page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds. Snowman (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Hi there, you have been asked to comment at WT:BIRD above on your discussion. Your note at User_talk:Rabo3 citing David Attenborough ("expert biologist which nobody can refute his credibility") suggests that you are not making yourself familiar with WP:RS. On Wikipedia it is not considered acceptable to cite hear-say, especially in the matters of scientific research, EVEN if it comes from a leading scholar. What are considered reliable sources are published journal articles / scholarly monographs. Please do take your discussion either at the above link on WT:BIRD or on the talk page of the relevant bird articles. This should not be considered a dispute between persons. Shyamal (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC) ---

Thank you! I have already used the Haribon Foundation documented studies or experiment and other site as reference pertaining to the eagles measurements which Rabo3 did not recognized as valid. I only cited David Attenborough as a supplemental to the largest wing-area of the eagle which even has a documented video on BBC special and is subject to copyright law and cannot be post here and It's not a "hearsay" as you were saying excuse me.. He is one of the leading expert IF David Attenborough is not reliable enough to you? you cannot just get an access from these scientific research and studies to put it on Wiki as reference. I will join the discussion at WT:BIRD when I'm ready, I am still gathering records, published journal, scientific research so that I can provide valid and acceptable references. Informaticz (talk)
 * Two comments: 1) Do not make false claims. I *never* said Haribon Foundation was invalid as a reference, and, unlike you which repeatedly has removed numerous references, I *never* suggested Haribon Foundation should be removed as a reference (which is what would happen if it was considered invalid under WP:RS). 2) As said on WP:BIRD, I will leave the discussion of the possible validity of the BBC special as a WP:RS to others, but note that David Attenborough is not the author. He is only the narrator in the program. The author, if you can speak of such, is the BBC Natural History Unit. • Rabo³  • 14:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes you never said it But you discredit it, you kept changing the Haribon as reference putting the measurement to 89-102 cm Citing Bird'slife as ref. but the 102 cm was just the average length of the eagle and yet using the Haribons FMNH 112 cm specimen as an extra ordinary or not normal in length which is obviously not the case, the adult male is 100.3 cm followed closely by the IMMATURE male 964 mm the 112 cm mature female is bigger or longer only by 10% of which is very normal in size. David Attenborough has so many featured documentary specie not only the Philippine eagle and What are you implying again this time by saying He's not the author in the program? are you saying that what he has said in the documentary has nothing to do with him but of the author? Weather he authored it or not he's part of the documentary video and his name and reputation is always at stake in what ever he says or probably you are questioning the credibility of BBC? one of the largest Broadcasting company in the world regarding the contents of the documentary video? Informaticz (talk)
 * Hi there. It seems like you are not making yourself aware of what Wikipedia is and the policies followed here. You may like to read up the relevant pages. As for citing Sir David Attenborough, this is not a practice followed on Wikipedia and indeed any work of scientific research. Videos may be cited for articles on specific news related topics or if the article itself talks about videos. You should see Videos_as_references which is not yet a policy. This should not however be an impediment, since Sir DA and the BBC themselves make use of research scholars to guide them and the material shown is always traceable to scholarly references which are often indicated at the end of the series. Such journal sources can readily be found and cited on Wikipedia. Please note that failure to follow the norms and policies can result in the blockage of your editing privileges. Shyamal (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank fo the reminder, I know this was just a matter of discussion not as reference to be used in the main article and I dont have the copy of the material shown which you said traceable for reference such as journal sources and BBC special is not available in the Philippine only BBC news, I only saw the documentary video in youtube which is now blocked due to copyrigth violation. Informaticz (talk)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Philippine Eagle. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please be careful about removing text especially when it is well referenced. Shyamal (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)