User talk:Philcha/Archives/2011/April

New brachiopod image
Hello Philcha: I added an image of a productid brachiopod to the Brachiopod page gallery. These Permian productids are unusual because of their conical shape and gregarious habits. Maybe you could find a clever place to insert the photo into the article itself and remove it from the gallery? I know you don't like overloaded galleries. Thanks! Wilson44691 (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Wilson44691. File:HercosestriaSmallCluster040111.jpg is interesting for its shape and gregarious habits. The problem is that the "fossil record" section of the article is occupied with the bar-graph of which arose when and which died out when / are still extant. Where would productids appear in the bar-graph? I could not want to sacrifice the bar-graph, e.g. it shows 1 group died at the Pr-Tr extinction and 2 Dead Clades Walking.
 * I also note that File:StrophomenidCornulitidOrdovician.jpg has a long caption, "... Brachiopod valves often serve as substrates for encrusting organisms" and I think this needs a citation.
 * I'll have a think about the surfeit of photos. Other articles have a similar cornucopia, e.g. Spider. The relevant WikiProjects may suggest something. --Philcha (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Philcha. Awkwardly, the best general citation for the cornulitid-brachiopod caption would be -- Wilson44691 (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The Order Productida is Ordovician-Triassic (Paleobiology Database) and has this taxonomy: They are important reef-formers in the Permian. Wilson44691 (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ashot Nadanian review
Thank you Philcha for the review and sorry for the recent edit conflict. I have opened and prepared the page Talk:Ashot Nadanian/GA1 for comments before you placed the "inuse" template, so I blundered it. Regards, --MrsHudson (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, MrsHudson. As far as as I can see, there's no harm done. I'm going to bed, so I'll finish my comments (except the lead) tomorrow. --Philcha (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Copulation
Hello, Philcha. I noticed that you recreated the Copulation article. I'm coming to you about this because I'm not seeing why it should exist, considering that the only way it is distinguished from sexual intercourse is that it sometimes refers to procreation only -- sexual reproduction between males and females. But then again, so does sexual intercourse. They are largely synonymous, as those same sources show. This is why Copulation has redirected to Sexual intercourse for so long. Why didn't you simply add this information about spiders there? I'm not seeing how Copulation will grow too much bigger, and be distinguished from sexual intercourse, unless it starts to have information about procreation only and regarding all animals. And if it doesn't grow in size soon, I'm sure someone will redirect it again. Flyer22 (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I replied on the Copulation talk page, and will bring other editors in on it. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

In response to your message
You inaccurately accused me of "vandalism" when you failed to realize I had corrected vandalism. I was studying and looked something about sponges up for reference and noticed that a sentence contained the word "spongebob" instead of sponge, so I corrected it. I even explained it in my description of my edits.

Be a little more observant next time before you leave warnings of blocking on a talk page. Please review the Vandalism page and look for the section of "how not to respond to vandalism" and also note that you are instructed to assume good faith editing before you accuse someone of vandalism, as someone (like me perhaps) May take offense to such an accusation.

I edited my talk page to remove your inaccurate "warning", please review it and feel free to delete your comment, perhaps with an apology added.

In either case I will delete both my comment and yours in 48 hours since it was completely unnecessary. Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.196.6 (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you fixed the last vandalism but not the previous one, and so made the situation, as the taxobox was damaged. --Philcha (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dragons Egg - cover 02.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Dragons Egg - cover 02.png. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Someone found a better lead pic for Dragons Egg, so mine is redundant. --Philcha (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Anthropocentric sexual intercourse article
I'm a bit worried that we may get some backlash if we come across as making threats rather than collaborating in good faith. What do you think of moderating the tone of your comments a bit? I think we need to convince them with superior arguments, not threats. Kaldari (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried superior arguments (much as at at Talk:Copulation), and the opposition just shouted me down. One suggested including copulation in Mating, but that's potentially enormous, including finding and selecting mates (incl senses and locomotion), copulation, cannibalism (I know some gruesome pics), child care (scorpions are devoted mothers of their hatchlings), pair bonding (some birds are much more faithful than us fickle humans), etc. I'd suggest Mating should more like a portal with links to specific aspects. So as I said, I tried superior arguments and was shouted down. The worst are the medics, a bunch of imperialists. A friend and I retitled Anus to Human anus, as the content would make innocent invertebrates blush - then created a new, short Anus (titter ye not) starting with the difference between protosomes and deutersomes. --Philcha (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Nemertea
I have the impression that this is not going anywhere. I think the most productive thing I can do is to fail the article at this point -- you can renominate the article whenever you feel like it (even immediately), and I will stay out of the process that follows. I don't much like to do that, but I can't pass the article in its current state and if I just wait for developments it seems likely to stay stuck indefinitely. Will that work for you? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Looie496, as far as I can see, you've not touched the main body of the article, except for "Fossil record" and "Family tree" (part about within Nemertea). Among other things, I'm not sure you understand nemerteans' anatomy and physiology - I didn't believe my eyes when I first read about them, and my reaction was "they're weird." An introduction to the invertebrates - pp. 76, 78, 82-84 says in generally that nemerteans are "very unusual" and the cerebral organ is "unique" - the only reason I did't use these points is that someone would demand attribution, and that would distract readers to whom the names mean nothing. If you don't understand nemerteans' anatomy and physiology, you're in no position to judge the lead.
 * If you fail the article with the GA review as it as at present, I'll request a GAR, with a copy of the preceding para . --Philcha (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right that I haven't addressed much of the content -- I don't feel that I can properly address the content until the structure is fixed. I have no problem at all with the article going to GAR.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Looie496. I see that you've not failed the GA review, and this seems the only way to make progress. --Philcha (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A thought struck me while having a rest after dinner. What's your main mode of thinking? While my education was all words, when I moved into real life I found to my surprise that my main mode is visual. --Philcha (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've failed it now. Regarding the question, I don't want to get sidetracked on that.  This is a completely straightforward issue:  in my view, topic sentences are not optional.  A paragraph without a topic sentence is a bad paragraph.  An article can get away with a bad paragraph every now and then, but not if the whole article is full of them.  Without topic sentences I can't tell what the paragraphs are intended to be about, so there is no way for me to evaluate the adequacy of their content. Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)