User talk:Rabo3/Archive 1

question on photo copyright
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've nominated both versions of this image for deletion in accordance with the concerns you raised on my talk page (see ). --Muchness 04:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Also for bringing the deletion requests page to my attention.Rabo3 04:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Bushtit
Hi Rabo3; I annotated the description of Image:Psaltriparus minimus.jpg with your edit summary. Please add the proper binomial name, if you feel so moved. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you've already dealt with it and also uploaded a corrected version of the photo. Thanks.Rabo3 22:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that recently you carried out a copy and paste page move. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself using the move link at the top of the page, follow the instructions at Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Andrew_pmk | Talk 05:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for letting me know. The reason I did it that way, was that the move page said it wouldn't work if pages with the new name already existed (as they did, as redirects). I'm pretty sure it's the only one I've done it with, but will report if I remember otherwise. I'll also make sure I ask for the move as described by you, in case there are other articles I believe need to be moved.Rabo3 05:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Green Peafowl
Hi. I too, am waiting for a hard scientific paper, which Kermit is says is Encyclopedia Gallinacea. I am clearly aware of the the uncited nature of the article. Kermit himself added a few things too. Parts of his research have already been quoted on the Red Data Book :
 * Green Peafowl can swim.
 * Perhaps Green Peafowl are not promiscuous, as they are monogamous in captivity.
 * Just because birds come from Myanmar does not mean its spicifer.
 * The Yunnan form is very distinctive, and its taxonomic position should be further examined.
 * The Imperial Pheasant is a hybrid. It was years later that his research was then told to a wider scientific community.

Unfortunately the genetic work on the various species of Green Peafowl is still underway. It may take years for this Green Peafowl issue to be published. Frankyboy5 05:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. Genetic and morphological data are both highly complex matters and results can easily be twisted into saying whatever one finds most appropriate. This is why published sources are so absolutely essential; so that other people can check if the data really support the claims made. Likewise, the lack of published sources also make it entirely impossible to judge even the most basic facts: For example, what species concept is applied? What was the sample size for the various taxa and/or populations? Were any zones of possible intergradation checked? Was the potential for bottleneck population taken into account? What was the genetic support (bootstrap values, etc)? ...and so on. Unfortunately, this is the problem with the Green Peafowl article. While it contain many controversial ideas presented as facts, most of these are essentially impossible to check and/or judge as they either lack sources completely or only have source "in litt" or "in preparation". I am adding a number of "citations needed" in the hope that future publication will clarify these matters. Should there be any of these cases where you have published source, please do not hesitate to contact me. Likewise if there are any of the other changes I made that you disagree on.Rabo3 06:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Common Ground-dove
Sorry about that. Thanks for fixing it back. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 14:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking for a Mealy photo?


Hello Rabo3. This is my very first attempt at trying to contact someone here, so please excuse any etiquette mistakes.

It looks like you’ve had some trouble getting a picture of a mealy amazon. Well, my Rocky is a mealy, and I’ve got a nice picture showing the “mealy” appearance of his wings. I tried to add it to your page, but I’m hopelessly incompetent. Perhaps it would make an appropriate addition to “Mealy Amazon.” I'll try posting it here, where I can't do much damage (I hope). If there is any interest, I could take a better picture (less junk in the background, etc.). Eightball38 11:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Eightball38. Welcome to Wiki! I just saw you already had managed to add the photo to the article. I moved it to the taxo-box, where the first photo typically is placed. Following the standard in bird articles, it is only if additional photos are available that they are placed within the article itself. A photo always improve the article. Thanks. Rabo3 21:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rabo3. I would have put the picture in the taxo-box myself, but my html skills are limited to cut and paste.  I’ll try to get Rocky to sit still for another photo session.   Something more “professional” looking would make a better addition to the page.  [[User:Eightball38|Eightba
 * There is a photograph with two Mealys roosting on the commons. They look different to the one on the photo here. Snowman (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yellow-headed Vulture picture?????
Rabo3,

First of all, thanks for your earlier edits to the King Vulture article and correcting me on their range. The source that I got that fact from was a bit outdated, but I should have confirmed it elsewhere. Second, I know that this is a long shot, but do you by anychance have some pictures of either of the Yellow-headed Vulture species, Greater or Lesser? I've noticed that you seem to concentrate on neotropical birds and was wondering if you live or have travelled in that area. Both of those articles are part of the potential New World Vulture Featured Topic, but Commons doesn't have any pictures of them. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 23:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately no. I do not have a photo of either Yellow-headed. I visit South America regularly and will try to get a photo the next time, but it depends on the possibility presenting itself. Otherwise a friend of mine found one of the few nests known of the Lesser Yellow-headed and I suspect he took some photos. If I get a photo one way or the other I'll make sure it is uploaded and added to the specific article. If the two Yellow-headed were to be feature articles they'd also need updated range-maps, as the ones in use at best can be considered inaccurate. Correct maps are available online on natureserve. Rabo3 11:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Spread the love


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. --PoeticXcontribs|undefined 22:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Blackbird
Thanks for the taxonomic additions - I had thought of expanding that bit, but didn't have a good enough source. I hope you don't mind that I've removed the link sentence from the intro, I'm trying to get this article eventually to GA/FA, and i think that leaving the "see..." bit in would run into MoS problems. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course - no probs. Rabo3 (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Cathartes melambrotus
Hi, I have tried to incorporate the two toned wings as provided in your reference photograph. Do take a look and let me know what you feel. Shyamal (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Very nice - it looks good.Rabo3 (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

IP edits
LOL. I thought that the bird project could get a new editor too... Oh well. Happy editing. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue-throated Toucanet
Thank-you for that. I have a great book on all the species of birds in North America. If you would like me to start another article relating birds of North American, please request it on my talk page. Thanks, 1bevingtonco (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

House Martin
The IOC lists "Common House Martin" (or is it "Common House-Martin"). Does this imply that the "House Martin" page should be changed to "Common House-Martin". It is up for FA and I think that the page name is important. There is some discussion on its talk page. Snowman (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yellow-faced Amazon
Someone has questioned the name of this bird. Has it got a new name now? Snowman (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yellow-headed Amazon taxonomy
Hi. I'm glad you improved Yellow-headed Amazon with your expert knowledge, but at one point the intended meaning got lost. The comment that "The complex is considered one species by some authorities and divided in different ways by others" was supposed to mean that authorities who split the complex differ in how they do so. Thus Howell says that the birds of the Sula Valley in Honduras are sometimes assigned to oratrix and sometimes to auropalliata, and the Hogle Zoo page quoted has a range map for oratrix extending to what looks like Peru! Or are these ideas now obsolete&mdash;does everyone now agree on the limits of oratrix, auropalliata, and ochrocephela, with the only disagreement being on whether they're conspecific? &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's good to have that straightened out (or as straight as it gets), and I'm sure you're wise to bypass the South American aspects. As many general readers will be interested in this page but not in the taxonomic "nonsense", I moved it to near the end of the article.  &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 18:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry about messing the article up and then leaving it for you! I thought I could finish the edits before a meeting, but I obviously should have taken more time.  &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 21:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

P. fuscicollis
Or the "Un-cape Parrot" has recently been reclassified. I have made some changes after internet searches, but it does seem to be a confusing topic. Snowman (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you detailed reply on my talk page. I have made the page much more speculative pending further data. Perhaps the page might have to be deleted. Snowman (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Psittacini
The classification of lovebirds is causing confusion. They do not look like Old World Parrots to me, but there is some new text on the "Psittacini" page about new findings. What is the weight of new evidence that lovebirds are Old World Parrots? Snowman (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to remember looking into this later when I have a bit more time on my hand. Rabo3 (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your informed views will be welcome. Snowman (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Lories and lorikeets
There is discussion about the name of the wiki page of this group of parrots on "Talk:Lories and lorikeets". I will be interested to hear your views. Snowman (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sun bird
With WP:bird not using their bird names strictly recently including on featured articles, I have nominated that Sun Parakeet be moved back to Sun Conure, the more widely used name of the parrot. Their is some discussion on this, which you might like to contribute too. Snowman (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds March 2008 Newsletter
The March 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiki break
I hope that your wiki break is not too long. You will be missed. There is lots of work that need doing on the parrot pages and other pages, and you can make a big difference. Snowman (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. Snowman (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Come back soon
Hi Rabo3: I'm hoping you'll still be checking this page every now and then. Please come back—WP:BIRD needs the assistance of good field ornithologists, and I sense that might be what you are... MeegsC | Talk 13:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good to see you back! MeegsC | Talk 16:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Some problems you could probably quickly answer
I expect I could make the simple changes, if I knew what to put.
 * Pionites melanocephalus (on the Black-headed Parrot wiki page) or Pionites melanocephala (on commons). Snowman (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have seen your corrections on wiki page and have made corrections to commons images and cagegories. Snowman (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the capitalisation correct in the species name "Great Spotted Woodpecker "? Snowman (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * yes. Rabo3 (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Platycercini or Platycercinae; the wiki article seems clear, but commons has Platycercinae. Snowman (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wiki article got it right, but phylogenetic relations among parrots are not still not entirely resolved. In any case these are members of an Oceanian clade. I work with Neotropicals. Rabo3 (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikispecies has platycercini too. I have changed commons. Snowman (talk) 09:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Grey-cheeked Parakeet - Brotogeris pyrrhoptera or pyrrhopterus. The spelling is different between commons and wiki. Snowman (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct is pyrrhoptera. From what I can understand, commons use ITIS, which is an "ok" basis, but, in terms of birds, it follows Sibley and Monroe almost without exception. Incorrectly, they used pyrrhopterus for this species (an easy mistake to make, as Brotogeris at first may appear masculine, but actually is feminine), and I suspect that's what you're seeing the result of on commons. Most authorities are now fully aware of these issues, and I'm not aware of any publications within the last few years that have used anything but the correct pyrrhoptera. The same problem can be seen in the Golden-winged Parakeet. Rabo3 (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have corrected pyrrhopterus this where it appears on commons. Is Brotogeris versicolurus, Canary-winged Parakeet, on both wiki and commons wrong too? Snowman (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine. Rabo3 (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Are there any grounds for "Grand Cayman Amazon" having its own article? Should it be merged into the "Cuban Anazon" page? Snowman (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess that's a matter of opinion. I know there are other subspecies that have pages, e.g. Laysan ʻApapane and Yariguies Brush-finch. I assume they're "OK" as long as the pages are representative (I haven't checked the Grand Cayman Amazon, so can't comment on it specifically), there's enough info to actually have an article, and there are clear links connecting the subspecies and the species articles. This can be seen in the brush-finch article... many species pages for Hawaiian honeycreeper (such as the ʻApapane) are more of a mess, in part because of a user who, under shifting usernames (currently Zelihowski), has started new pages and added info to others that in part was fine (even if it needed some copyedit), but in part also included a lot of highly speculative info that really isn't anything but guesswork and for obvious reasons lacks references (remember the Mialoa and following discussion?). Let's just say I'm staying out of that department of wikipedia. Back on subject - I assume subspecies pages are fine as long as they can fulfill the earlier mentioned requirements. Not that I intend to start writing pages about subspecies. Rabo3 (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Having just checked Grand Cayman Amazon that's one case where I'd support a merge. At least unless someone can add a bunch of info specific to this subspecies that wouldn't fit the entire species. Rabo3 (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not quite ready to nominate or do the merge. I added "Amazone l. palmarum" to the "Cuban Amazon" page, but I have since found other webpages that indicate that it is a synonym for the nominate. Do you know any up-to-date information on the classification? Also, "Cuban Amazon" seems to be ok on the wiki, but is it otherwise ok to use "Cuban Amazon" or is it "Cuban Parrot"? Snowman (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I have found some refs for a four subspecies list, and I hope the refs I have listed are not out-of-date. "Grand Cayman Amazon" is now a redirect to "Cuban Amazon". Snowman (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What?
Sorry, why have I got to message anybody. That image has nothing to do with me! Btline (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, re-reading the comment I can see how that could be misunderstood. The inform section was aimed at Sdrtirs - not you. I have edited to avoid this potential misunderstanding. Rabo3 (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And now the thing I added to the image page has been wiped. Can you reinstate it please? It provides useful information. Thanks, Btline (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to above here. Rabo3 (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Re. Huggle
I'm sorry 'bout that, and it will not happen again. If it is to any avail, before that edit I had seen some vandalism to infoboxes and the pictures. I assumed this was as well. Forry, and I'm thankful you brought this up. Much appreciated, and happy editing, Leonard(Bloom) 19:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

___________________________________