User talk:Rlendog/Archive 1

Springsteen song articles
I see that you're creating a bunch of articles for Springsteen songs. Please note that per WP:SONGS and WP:Notability (music), not all songs warrant articles, and there are many admins and editors out there who will try to delete them. Singles will survive, so "Fade Away" is okay, but run-of-the-mill album tracks like "Ramrod" probably will not. Only album tracks that are especially notable or famous or an example of his work will be viewed as warranting articles, so for example "The River" will be okay. But obscurities like "Be True" are likely to get junked. Just want to keep you from doing work that gets lost ... Wasted Time R (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"new" sportive lemurs
Why not Louis, Jr, 2006 for the authority? Look at sportive lemur's ** note. He's the primary author. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I thought I had left that as a stray reference when I copied the taxobox.  I restored the references to Louis.Rlendog (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Also, they should be in Category:Prosimians. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

marsupial lion
In regards to "nor are many going to be aware that Marsupial Lion and Marsupial lion are necessarily two different things", but they are not two different things. As of yet everyone has failed to defend the keeping of marsupial lion as a redirect to "Thylacoleonidae". They always defend it by saying "marsupial lions" which I have already pointed out is already redirected to it, or as Uther said "marsupial lion family". There are not other species deserving the common name "Marsupial Lion", T.carnifex is the largest species of the so called "marsupial lions" and is the most deserving of the name. In fact if it were not for this species I doubt the common name "marsupial lions" would have even come about to describe the family. By the way, I am curious to find out exactly how you came about this page? Cazique (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Welcome
 Welcome! Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add User WikiProject Films to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:
 * Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].


 * The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for May has been published.  June's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
 * Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia.  Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

message
I'm sending this to all the wikiproject:mammals participants. There's a naming guideline up for discussion on the talk page, and the more people get involved the more valid any consensus drawn. Ironholds 19:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2008 Newsletter
The June 2008 issue of the Films 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. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Baseball Newsletter
--  jj137   ( talk )  03:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

sample

 * Thank you for the compliment and for the examples for using references better. That should make things easier! Rlendog (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

recent edits
Aw gee... they can't all be asses... some of them must be halfway decent. ;) Good job! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I hope my "s" key wasn't sticking too often when I typed that. :)  I was trying to get us down to only 2 pages of unassessed articles, and I think I succeeded for now.  In some cases there were articles with quite a bit of information but few citations.  I usually made those "start", but maybe the new "C" is more appropriate.  But I don't think we have approved use fo teh  C rating in the Primate project.  Rlendog (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2008 Newsletter
The July 2008 issue of the Films 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) 02:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Springsteen discography
Billboard's Rock Tracks chart started March 21, 1981 so it missed out on the tracks from The River that got the most airplay like "Hungry Heart" and "The River" but reflects the second tier of tracks that were getting airplay in early '81. I'm using Joel Whitburn's Rock Tracks book as my source. For some reason Billboard's online archive is incomplete prior to 1984 (even if you have a subscription). I don't see "Jersey Girl" listed but I'm sure it got airplay in some cities. Piriczki (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I just came across this discussion but here: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:jifpxqr5ldae~T51. This is from allmusic which has all the american chart positions from the 60s, pop singles is now known as Billboard Hot 100. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. Ironically, I have been to the allmusic site a lot and never noticed that folder.  Rlendog (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Rock music WikiProject
I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. I didn't see a sign up area, but consider me part of the team! Rlendog (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good, here WikiProject Rock music/Members, this is where you sign. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and another thing when you add the WPRock template you should assese thea article. We have to many unassessed articles. Take a look at the Category:Unassessed Rock music articles. I noticed this when i assessed those Bruce Springsteen studio albums. But its good that you added those WPRock templates so keep up your good work on wikipedia. :] --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are there formal assessment criteria (especially for importance)? Rlendog (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well for a artist or album to be importent you need to look at sales, importance in music culture and so on. Its not hard, but Springsteens newest studio album is a mid, why, well cause of its sales and it didn't produce a hit single of any kind.

If you didn't get it just say so. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The four different importance levels. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Low
 * Mid
 * High
 * Top


 * Great job on assessing those articles, thanks. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK hooks
Rlendog, I left a couple notes at DYK regarding the Jillian Clare & Common Brown Lemur articles you nominated. Any questions, let me know. Mitico (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I 'yes ticked" the Lemur article. The taxonomy is interesting, but I think you are right about it being too difficult/technical to explain in a dyk hook.  For the Jillian Clare article, per Art Lapella's description - I think changing the list of awards noms to prose will suffice.  I'll keep a watch out and green tick then.  Thanks. Mitico (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Primate work
Hi Rlendog, great work so far on the Primate article! I was just thinking we have to be careful about not doing the same bit of the GA review at the same time, we're almost editing over each other! Anyway I'm stopping now, good luck for the rest of the review :) Cheers, Jack (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK Redtail Splitfin
- Mitico (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Fish-related suggestions in AFC.
Hi there, I see you're part of Wikiproject:Fishes, and I also see that you're one of the most recently-active participants in the project. In that case, you may be able to help me here. In AFC, there has been two suggestions given for types of Cardinalfish. The problem is, that I'm not sure if the common names for the two species are widely-used common names or just names used by the website. Therefore, I'm not sure if these articles are suitable for creation, or should be part of a genus article, or even the Cardinalfish page itself. I have a copy of the two submissions on one of my sandboxes, here: Would you please look them over, and tell me what you think? Thanks! Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don&#39;t mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know a lot more about freshwater fish than saltwater. But the common names you have are correct.  Fishbase is about as authoritative a site as there is on these issues.  Also, the Pajama Cardinalfish is actual pretty common, so I am familar with that name, and I found the Orbiculate Cardinalfish in a book I have (Marine Fish by Scott Michael).  The information you provide for the articles is also correct according to FishBase and my other book.  A few point:
 * I would capitalize the "C" in Cardinalfish in the titles. I always capitalize all words in the common names of species in the titles and no one ever complained.  I am not sure if this is the case for the Fish project, but for some other projects (i.e., Birds, Primates) this is actually the standard.
 * For the orbiculate cardinalfish, the area the fish is found per Fishbase seems to be more of a continuous range than the separate islands you refer to. But I wouldn't say "throughout the Indo-Pacific" either since the "throughout" implies a wider range than the fish seems to have.  The Michael book just gives the range as "Indo-west-Pacific".  Going by the map in Fishbase (and the text) it seems to live over a wide area in the Indo-Pacific, but close to shores (i.e., it doesn't seem to show up in mid-ocean far from either an island or continent).  I think a safe way to summarize all this is "Orbiculate cardinalfish are found in many costal areas of the Indo-Pacific, including East Africa, Kiribati, the Ryukyu Islands, Caledonia, Belau, eastern Caroline and Mariana Islands."
 * You might also want to mention that "The orbiculate cardinalfish eats mostly planktonic crstaceans, eating mostly at night."
 * Also instead of saying "dark spotted 'waistband'", I'd say "dark vertical waistband". The Michael book has a photo of the fish, and the waistband itself is not spotted (although there are spots behind it, that you already refer to separately), but I think the word "vertical" is important to give a full description.  If you really want to change another word from what Fishbase has, maybe say "black, vertical 'waistband'".  You may also want to give its size of 10 centimeters.
 * If you want some info from the Michael book, you can state that they are recommended fish for a saltwater aquarium. The citation would be
 * For the Pajama Cardinalfish, the range is fine, although if you want to be extra careful about avoiding possible copying accusations, maybe say it as "The Pajama cardinalfish is distributed throughout the West Pacific, from Java to Fiji, and the Ryukyu Islands to the Great Barrier Reef." Although what you wrote is probably fine as is anyway.
 * Just as a style point, I'd swap the first and last sentences. That it is a popular aquarium fish can be the lead, and the red eyes can go after the sentence describing the body to complete the description.
 * Also with the description, I would note that it grows to 8.5 centimeters total length (in fish TL, or total length, is the length including the tail; sometimes you see SL, or standard length, which is the length excluding the tail).
 * There are some pictures you can link to in Commons for the articles, especially any infobox:
 * Pajama Cardinalfish
 * Image:Sphaeramia nemanoptera.JPG|thumb
 * Image:Sphaeramia nemanoptera.2 - Aquarium Finisterrae.JPG|thumb


 * Orbiculate Cardinalfish (not so great, but you can see the solid, non-spotted waistband that is also thinner than in the pajama cardinalfish:
 * Image:Sphaeramia orbicularis.jpg|thumb


 * Very nice job by the way. I'm glad to see that you are willing to return to creating articles despite the recent dramas. Rlendog (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for participation in User:Abd/RfC
Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Primate
Thanks so much Rlendog, that's very sweet. But really it's you who should be getting the star, you did amazing work on Primate (and were very patient with my slow response!) and you've been doing great DYK work lately too it seems! I realized I had screwed up and forgotten to check the images! Most were fine but I did find one for which I thought the fair use rationale was not valid, so I removed the image and tagged it: Image:Caged monkeys.jpg. I think the article's fine without the image, but another one of monkeys in labs or cages could be found if you want. I'm sorry, what an awful slip up. :( You can take the star back if you want.  :P  Anyway, keep up the great work, see you around soon I hope!   delldot   talk  23:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ring-tailed lemur page
Thanks for the additional clean-up on the Ring-tailed lemur page today, as well as the bump up on the rating scale. Out of curiosity, what would it take (in your opinion) to get the article rated as "feature article" status? I've read the criteria, but I guess I don't have the critical eye to see what is sought. If you (and others) could give me a target to clearly aim at, I'll make sure we hit it dead center. One thing I can see is that we need better pictures and diagrams. If you know a good illustrator who'd be willing to help, please put them in touch with me. I have ideas, but lack the skills to implement them. Otherwise, I've been promised photos from a well-known photographer at the Duke Lemur Center. They won't be his best photos, because he wants to reserve all rights on those, but we should get some decent ones for many lemur species. The other thing I know we need is a better "Auditory communication" section, which I plan to write soon, in addition to some clean-up on the main article (Calls of the Ring-tailed Lemur). I was also thinking about getting video of a stink fight, spur marking, and scent marking for the page.

Whatever you spell out here will be taken into consideration as I work on my next major edit -- Black and white ruffed lemur. The information is coming together quickly, and I may start this week. The only hold-up, at this point, is the need for new photos, which should be coming from Duke. Just so you know, when the edit is finished, the page will look nothing like what it does now.

Visionholder (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure what it takes to get an article to Featured Article status, but the first step would be to get it to Good Article status. I only had my first experience with a Good Article review recently, with Primate.  That may have been more complicated than an article dealing with a single species, since it is covering such a broad topic.  But I did learn a few things.  The lead for Ring-tailed Lemur needs to be expanded to basically summarize the entire article (or at least the important parts).  I was going to take a stab at that tonight, but I'm not sure I'll be able to get to it until tomorrow or Friday.  A few more in-line citations are probably needed - I think the sections on diet, olafactory communincations and maybe physical appearance probably can use some more.  It would be good (but I don't think necessary) to address the red links.  And I think the article could use a map of the range (I wish I knew how to create those), but I am not sure it is necessary to get to GA.  Either way, there will probably be additional requests for clarifications, rewording, additional information, additional citations and possibly some reorganization during the review.


 * I looked for other mammal species articles that are currently listed as GA that could be used as a guide. Unfortunately, there aren't many mammal GAs (there are a number of FAs) and many of became GA a few years ago, when the criteria were apparently less stringent (some may eventually be delisted).  A couple that did seem particularly good were Walrus and Philippine Tarsier.


 * With respect to photos, I would check with User:UtherSRG. I only use photos that are listed on Wikipedia Commons, since those should have all the proper permissions.  I am not sure how it works when the photographer gives you permission to use the photos.  I am sure there is a way to use them, but Uther would probably know better (or else would know who else to ask).


 * In any case, I think this is an important candidate for moving to GA. So whatever I can do to help make that happen, let me know. Rlendog (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I was also considering re-wording the lead and even the physical description section. If you beat me to the lead, then great!  A map of the home range was one of my ideas, as well as a visual size scale (comparing to an average human).  I might be able to do the home range image, basing it on the map shown in "Lemurs of Madagascar" by Mittermeier, et al. Again, I'd prefer to enlist the help of a skilled illustrator.


 * As for in-line citations, the reason I didn't use more citations was because entire blocks of information often came from the same source. Therefore, I'd put the citation at the end of the paragraph.  Essentially, everything I wrote should be cited... though maybe not properly.  Feel free to fix that; and I will learn from your edits and implement them in my future revisions.


 * Lastly, all of the pictures (and audio files) I have used and will use are on WikiCommons. I've gone through the process of getting permission from the copyright owners of the audio files and forwarded it on to Wiki (to get OTRS tickets).  The handling of images should be no different.  Visionholder (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Toilet-claw article - creation & deletion
Maybe you can help me out. I created a brief page (a primate stub) similar to the toothcomb stub created by UtherSRG. I stated the basic information about the toilet-claw and even referenced a journal article. It had a references section and listed 3 appropriate categories. I thought it was a sufficient start for a page that I planned to later come back and fill in as I obtained photos and worked on more detailed text. The page content was not redundant or "gibberish", as claimed by the warning that I got on my talk page from Josh3580.

Did I do anything wrong? Can I appeal the deletion? I spent an hour on that page, making sure it was worded, cited, and linked properly. Needless to say, I'm not happy. Feel free to discuss this on my user page. (I'm asking you specifically because we have a working history on the Ring-tailed lemur page.) Thank you for your time. Visionholder (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for helping me out with this. I'll put that page (and the toothcomb page) on my list of upcoming revisions.  Unfortunately, I had an opportunity to photograph a toilet-claw on a lemur I was assigned to, but I missed the chance.  I will see if I can get a picture from a researcher to help give a visual for anyone reading that stub.  Again, I appreciate your help.  Visionholder (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

new "major update" to Ring-tailed lemur
I just stayed up all night making some of the changes you and I recently discussed to the Ring-tailed Lemur page. I've rewritten both the lead and the "Physical description" section, added content to the "Auditory communication" section, fixed a few links & refs, relocated the "Taxonomy" section, and created a range map. I'm looking forward to seeing your edits and comments.

One thing that I feel needs work is the references. Some look redundant (on the surface) -- such as the Groves refs -- so I was wondering if we could consolidate or distinguish them. Also, the only difference between the Cawthorn refs is the access date. Could we just update the previous ref (with the older access date) to match the new one, especially since the web document hasn't been modified since the first set of refs? Visionholder (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks great! I'm not sure what else could or should be done to improve.  I guess the way to go would be to nominate for a good article review and see what happens.  With respect to the references, I was concerned about that with the Grove references.  But they do reference different pages.  I don't have the page numbers to incorporate (I do this through the weeb link and I don't see page numbers there) but I added a comment to the refs to try to distinguish them.  The Cawthorn pages actually are different (see the last word of the blue link).  The first is the Lemur catta taxonomy, morphology and ecology page, the 2nd is the Lemur catta behavior page, and the last is the Lemur catta conservation page.  By the way, that map looks great.  How did you do it?  There are a lot of primate articles would benefit from a map but I haven't figured out how to make them (I draw terribly). Rlendog (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The range map was created in Photoshop, though it could just as easily (or more easily?) have been created in MS Paint. I searched WikiCommons for a map of Madagascar that I liked (showing state borders and rivers), and fortunately what I found was in the public domain.  I just zoomed in on the map and started coloring (carefully) with a paintbrush tool.  (The ?'s were added with a text tool.)  I saved the work when finished, and uploaded as a derived image on WikiCommons.


 * You don't have to worry about the other lemur pages -- I'll gladly do those. If one is a priority, and you can't wait for me to get around to it, just tell me of its importance, and I'll make time.  In fact, I also owe you a few favors, so if you still have problems creating these maps, I'd be willing to make a couple for you, as long as you can point me to a source for that primate so I know what to draw.  Best wishes!  Visionholder (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt you'll make great maps for the lemur pages! When you found the map you liked, how did you get it in into Photoshop (or MSPaint)?  I assumed people did this on Wikipedia, but I guess not.  But I don't even know how to download a map to even start painting. Rlendog (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just right-click on the full-size image and "Save As" to whatever destination you want on your computer. As long as the file is a .png, .jpg, .gif, .tif, or .bmp file, you can open it directly from Paint.  (It's probably best to save in .png format, which is a patent-free format and perfect for range maps.)  Just make sure that whatever you download is in the public domain, and when you upload your modified map, you upload it as a derived image (pointing to the original).  I'm sure there are more professional ways to make range maps, using GPS input, etc.  In fact, I think I saw that some maps on Wiki are made with some online software... but I wasn't able to figure it out, and I didn't know the GPS coordinates to make an appropriate range map anyway.  Therefore, I just duplicated what I saw in Mittermeier's lemur guide and cited it.  Hope this helps.  Visionholder (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Rlendog (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections
Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter
The August 2008 issue of the Films 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) 01:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Revert
Hi, I reverted this edit, as you put the assessment on the wrong page. I’ve updated the assessment template on the talk page with your version. &mdash; H92 (t · c · no) 16:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ruffed lemurs (upcoming major revision)
To continue the discussion we had started on my talk page... I've been looking over all of my sources, and aside from coat coloration, geographic range, and possibly the number of plant species they feed on, I haven't found many differences between the two species of Varecia. If you know sources that document the differences, I would appreciate the references.

At this point, when I make the major revisions for Varecia variegata and Varecia rubra, the pages may be worded nearly identically (with the differences noted above) and will have different pictures. I can make the Varecia page a more general version of the (sub)species pages, too, plus talk more about hybridization zones, evolution, etc.

Your thoughts/comments? Visionholder (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry it's taken a while to get back to you. I had missed your note behind the next one.  My personal view is that repetition is not a problem here.  We seem to have taken a view, within the Primate project and Tree of Life in general, that each individual species article is important.  So I think it is appropriate to have full information in each species article.  Of course, to the extent there have been studies of a specific species, the result of those studies can also be used as a differentiating factor.


 * That said, I suspect that more people looking for information about either species of ruffed lemur will simply type in "ruffed lemur" rather than typing something like "black-and-white ruffed lemur". They may not even be aware of the need to do so.  So I think it is important to have as complete an article for "ruffed lemur", because people who go there and want additional details would not even necessarily know whether they ought to go to "black-and-white ruffed lemur" or to "red ruffed lemur" to fill themselves in.  And then if any of the "black-and-white ruffed lemur" subspecies get elevated to species level it will be even more complicated for users to figure out where to go.  So my own personal bias would be that if any general information will not be repeated, it is better off in the general "ruffed lemur" article than the individual species articles.  It would be more obvious to anyone who goes directly to the individual species article to go to the genus article for more info than vice versa.


 * But, as I said above, I personally have no problem with repetition. I think over time the articles will diverge appropriately on their own anyway.  When I was splitting the Minke Whale articles (not a genus but a below genus clade) into separate species articles - Common Minke Whale and Antarctic Minke Whale - I left a lot of repetitious material, and no one has complained yet.  I even got a WP:DYK credit for my troubles. Rlendog (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback. I've gotten a little behind on those major revisions due to a number of job/volunteer openings popping up, which has tied me up with resumes, cover letters, etc.  I've started to research each type of ruffed lemur, and I'm busy looking for information to distinguish them.  Hopefully this coming week I'll be able to write the articles.


 * As for the reclassification of subspecies as species, that appears to be a very tricky topic with lemurs. Besides conservation groups trying to gain extra government protection by pushing for species status on many subspecies, there also appear to be hybridization and gene flow, despite what appear to be genetic differences that would normally merit species status.  In many cases, I suspect we're looking at ring species that are now in the gradual process of full speciation due to fragmentation of their environment by humans.  Do we jump the gun and label them as species for environmental protection, or do we push for more radical changes to reconnect their home ranges so that the "ring" and its consequent gene flow be reestablished?  I'll talk to some researchers and search for more articles, and then I might include this kind of information on the Ruffed lemur page.  Visionholder (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It can't hurt to add the information to the articles.  But I wouldn't jump the gun on labeling as species.  We would still need a reliable, verifiable source for the new species, and if they haven't been officially classified yet, it is probably premature.  But subspecies can have their own articles too, even if they aren't full species. Rlendog (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't label them as species. That's the job of researchers and panels of experts.  Anyway, personally, I'm a clumper.  I'm not wholy convinced the ruffed lemurs should have been split into 2 species.  But if it buys more environmental protection, then great!  I'm just here to report what's in the literature.  Cheers!  Visionholder (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see why the black and white ruffed lemur was split from the red, since their coloration is so different, even if little else is. But I tend to be a clumper too.  And while I understand the benefits to environmental protection from splitting, that also makes me cynical about the process.  And I think eventually it can backfire. Rlendog (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * About the backfiring, I completely agree. As for the split in genus Varecia, I plan to give as much information about their differences as well when I re-write the pages.  In fact, there are even a few differences in their vocalizations, but the differences are slight.  It definitely suggests ongoing speciation, but the existence of hybrids at the boundaries with V. v. subcincta, as well as the reddish-brown tint seen in the coat varieties shown in Mittermeier's "Lemurs of Madagascar", suggests to me they're not fully there yet.  Personally, I'd like to see a new definition of the term "species", especially for current and former ring species.  Visionholder (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

update on Ring-tailed Lemur
Yesterday, Ring-tailed Lemur passed its GA review and was upgraded. I am now ready to make a push for FA status, although I realize there is a lot of work ahead. I'm seeking help from the FA-team, and have posted a proposal on their proposal site. I hope you don't mind, but I listed you as an editor ("general support"), with me as the "primary editor." If you would prefer that I remove your name from the proposal, just say. I am willing to take as much of the responsibility as needed to meet their recommendations, even if it's 100%. I just didn't want to slight you as an editor of the page, and I didn't want the proposal to look like I'm the only one editing the page. Just let me know how you feel about this, please. - Visionholder (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's great. I just saw a little while ago that the article got upgraded and was going to send you a note to congratulate you.  I didn't even realize that the GA review had started when I saw that it had passed.  That was quick!  Primate took about a month and probably a good 200 edits between me, User:Jackhynes and others to get to GA status.  So it's great that Ring-tailed Lemur passed so quickly and a testament to all the great work you did on that article.  I look forwarded to participating in the FA team for it.  I never worked on getting an article up to GA, so this should be interesting.  And, of course, the subject of the article is wonderful.  I'll just point out that I will be traveling much of the rest of September, so may not have as much time to devote as I'd like.  But I'll do what I can. Rlendog (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * One more question while I'm conversing with you - I see you made a comment about ruffed lemur having "flagship status". I was curious what that meant. Rlendog (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * From my understanding, ruffed lemurs have been deemed "flagship species" (forgot which organization made the call). Basically, they're more "personable" than Ring-tailed Lemurs, and since they live in a more threatened habitat and they're more endangered, they supposedly make for a better flagship species for the public to attach to.  Personally, I've noticed that a lot of zoos are starting to carrying ruffed lemurs, even favoring them over the traditional Ring-tailed Lemurs.  That's why I elevated the importance rating.  Basically they're becoming equally as popular to the public and equally as important for conservation as the Ring-tailed Lemur. Does that answer your question?  (Sorry for the lack of a reference.)  If you disagree with the assessment, feel free to change it.  And thanks for your support on my quest for a FA article!  - Visionholder (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the Mammal Barnstar! BTW: Feel free to post awards on my user page under the Awards section.  (I know... I should say so at the top of my discussion page.)  Eventually, I can foresee my talk page requiring an archive, but I'd like to keep awards visible.  ;-)  Visionholder (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You should be able to move or copy the barnstar to your user page if you want. Rlendog (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections - voting now open!
Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

List of New York Mets Opening Day starting pitchers
Hey there. I just wanted to say thank you for your help with List of New York Mets Opening Day starting pitchers. I'm planning to try to promote this article to WP:FL status. Again, thank you for your help, and keep it up! :-) -- RyRy  ( talk ) 18:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

List of New York Mets Opening Day starting pitchers
Thanks for your help on this. RyRy and myself have been a bit too busy lately... After I can find some newspaper articles confirming the decisions for some of the more recent games, care to conom with RyRy and myself for FLC. --Admrboltz (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure! Rlendog (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I found newspaper articles for most of the games over the past 20 years. I see you've been working on a few of these lists.  I'd be happy to contribute to those as well. Rlendog (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It is now nomed for FLC here, could you put your three ~ next to conoms? --Admrboltz (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * done. Rlendog (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2008 Newsletter
The September 2008 issue of the Films 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. Please also note that after the roll call for active members, we've cleared the specialized delivery lists. Feel free to sign-up in the relevant sections again! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: 92.43.64.70's vandalism
Try giving him a 4im. After striking again within three days, you can go report him. Alexius08 (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

New IUCN Red List update & template
A new IUCN Red List update just came out. There appears to be some big updates on mammals, and particularly lemurs. I'm going through the lemur pages today to add the latest information. I have also created a new IUCN template, IUCN2008, to replace IUCN2006. There have been changes in the IUCN Red List website's URL structure, and although it currently redirects for the old links, I'm strongly recommending that people switch to this new template (as well as update the status on every species they can). I'm going to post this in a few key places on Wiki, but if you could help spread the word and reflect it in the pages you've been working on, I'd appreciate it.

Best wishes, - Visionholder (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Thanks.  By the way, what is the status of the Ring-tailed Lemur article?  I've away most of the past two weeks, and the Wikipedia time I've had has been directed towards a Featured List review that I accidently stumbled into and a GA review for Bottlenose Dolphin, which I nominated before the Ring-tailed Lemur nom but didn't get reviewed until a week ago.  Both of those experiences gave me some insights that may be useful for the FAC for Ring-tailed Lemur.  I was thinking that maybe it's time to just nominate it, and get feedback that way for any needed improvements, but I found a peer review function which probably would be the better way to go.  I know the peer review you attempted to get from WikiProject Primates didn't get off the ground, but this peer review site is more general, and so more likely to generate a positive response. Rlendog (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Congrats on the GA for Bottlenose Dolphin! As for FA on Ring-tailed Lemur, I was going to wait another week or two before nominating it, mostly because I'm getting close to releasing the major update for Ruffed Lemur, and I really need to finish it.  (Aside from minor polishing after I publish it, it may merit GA status almost immediatley.)  So as soon as I publish what I'm working on, I'll nominate both articles.  If you want to sign us up for the peer review, though, you have my blessing.  I'll help when I can.  But for just another week, Ruffed lemur has become my top priority... mostly because this re-write has taken a month longer than I planned.  It will be worth it, though.  - Visionholder (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A fun mess &mdash; lemur renames!
I've never done disambiguation, page moves, and redirects before. Looks like I'm getting a crash course today. The IUCN now recognizes a new species, the Red-fronted Brown Lemur (Eulemur rufifrons). Unfortunately, Red-fronted Brown Lemur is another name of the Red Brown Lemur (Eulemur rufus), so the page name already exists. In fact, Red-fronted Brown Lemur was the main page. Fun! So I'm in the process of moving the existing page to Red Brown Lemur, creating a disambiguation link, then (somehow) changing the auto-created redirect to a new lemur page, also with a disambiguation link. Unfortunately, I'm sure that I'm missing a step here. Is there something special I should say at the top of the new Red-fronted Brown Lemur (when I'm done) instead of (or in addition to) the disambiguation link, since old links will now be pointing to the wrong page?

Yet one more reason why I am strongly opposed to the decision to name animal pages by their common name, instead of the scientific name. >.<

- Visionholder (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You may want to hold off - and check with User:UtherSRG. The de-facto standard for naming is Mammal Species of the World 3.  Just that the IUCN recognized an additional species doesn't make it so.  Now if a prominent primatologist (Mittermeier, Groves, etc.) published a new paper recognizing a new species that hadn't been recognized in MSW3 we may need to adapt.  But if IUCN is just giving a new name to something we already have an article for, I'd just set up a redirect page (or pages) redirecting the IUCN name to the existing article name.Rlendog (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Err... little late now. We can always roll back, I guess.  And, unfortunately, my ISP's network connection has slowed down to modem speed over the last hour, so I may not be able to post until they get it fixed.  Oh well... it will all work itself out.  - Visionholder (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, don't worry about it. Worst that can happen is that some of these get reverted.  But using the scientific name on animal pages is not a panacea.  After all, it looks like IUCN changed some of the scientific names too.  And take a look at the slow edit war that was brewing at Sperm Whale over the past few days.  In any case, consider the primary audience.  We know the scientific names for the animals we write about, but is someone wanting to learn about ring-tailed lemurs be more likely to be looking for "ring-tailed lemur" or for "Lemur catta"? Rlendog (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * With all respect, I still disagree over the scientific vs. common name debate. As for the lemur changes today, I wouldn't have had to shuffle any pages if we were using scientific names.  (I would have had to move one, but that's a lot easier than replacing one with another.)  Scientific names are unique, so there's no need for disambiguation.  As for the primary audience, I don't think it matters as much.  They search on "Ruffed Lemur" and I search on "Varecia" &mdash; it goes to the same page.  The big, bold article title is different, but as long as the first sentence mentions the most common names (in bold), and the article uses those names throughout, I don't see it mattering to the majority of people.  Add a few good pictures, and I doubt very many would even notice the difference.  Using the same argument, one could claim (and they have) that using "technical terms" and "scientific language" is too confusing in biology articles, and that they should be written in "simple English" for the average Joe.  That, to me, is a bigger deal than just the big, bold title at the top of the page.  If we're going to stick with an academic approach to presenting the information, it seems contradictory to do it in the text and not in the title.
 * As for our case today, UtherSRG wrote on the Sperm Whale page: "MSW3 is the defacto standard used in the majority of mammal articles. It's only superseded when there is a preponderance of evidence against it, or when new species have been discovered." In the lemur situation, the latter appears to be the case, so I may be on firm grounds to supersede it.  I hate getting involved in these academic pissing contests, but I (personally) could think of no other way to create the appropriate page for the new species, but only because we insist on using the common name as the article name.  - Visionholder (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I wish you'd waited until I got online tonight. This was bad, very bad. We don't use IUCN for common or taxonomic naming whatsoever. They are not an authority for either, only on conservation status.... I'll be reverting a bunch tonight... - UtherSRG (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Triple crown jewels
Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on List of New York Mets Opening Day starting pitchers - I like the layout/structure, nice job overall. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 08:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hang On...
Listen Doctah, my changes to Alec Ferguson's page were whooly jistified! I'ma jist tryin' ta help wikypedia by makin' loadsa way gooder changes! Listen to me Doctor! I never vandal anything! Get back ta me on this one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chogglershouseparty (talk • contribs) 19:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It is done! -- Ruffed lemur
I was going to post this last night, but my Internet connection died as soon as I had it typed up, and it just now came back on:

"I have finally finished the Ruffed lemur re-write tonight and posted it. When you get a moment, I'd appreciate it if you could look it over and perform any necessary clean-up, as well as assign it a new rating.  If you think it's ready, I will submit it for a GA review as soon as you give it the green light.  I will also submit Ring-tailed Lemur for an FA review within the next few days.

Thanks for your patience and support."

As for the DYK, you beat me to it! I was planning to submit one as as soon as I posted the note above. LOL! I knew that happen! :-P

- Visionholder (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, thank you for the rate up and helping out with the DYK. I don't mind that you beat me to it.  I've posted another DYK for the same page, only because I had it picked out weeks in advance.  Your support has always been deeply appreciated.  - Visionholder (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I only nominated it because I didn't realize that you planned to.  I deleted my nomination, since your hook should obviously have priority. Rlendog (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Pilot whale capitalization
Hello- I saw your edits to the pilot whale articles and wanted to refer you to the guidance on capitalization of common names: 5th bullet under Capitalization, and last paragraph of Common_name. -Eric talk 14:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Cetaceans and WikiProject Mammals disucss this issue too, but are less clear cut about whether to capitalize or not. I've been working on a number of cetacean articles lately and virtually all capitalize the species name, making the pilot whale articles stand out if they do not.Rlendog (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ronn Reynolds
Dear Rlendog, thanks for starting the Ronn Reynolds article. Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sperm whaling

 * American sperm whaling soon spread from the east coast of the American colonies to the Gulf Stream, the Grand Banks, West Africa (1763), the Azores (1765) and the South Atlantic (1770s). From 1770 to 1775 Massachusetts alone produced 39,390 barrels of sperm oil annually, compared to 7,650 of whale oil.

''Starbuck, A. 1878. History of the American Whale Fishery from its Earliest Inception to the Year 1876. Castle.''
 * In the 19th century ... being sent to ... the Indian Ocean (1780s), and as far away as the Japan grounds (1820)

''Stackpole, E. A. 1972. Whales & Destiny: The Rivalry between America, France, and Britain for Control of the Southern Whale Fishery, 1785-1825. The University of Massachusetts Press.''


 * and the coast of Arabia (1820s),

''Baldwin, R., M. Gallagher, and K. van Waerebeek. A Review of Cetaceans from Waters off the Arabian Peninsula.''


 * as well as Australia (1790s) and New Zealand (1790s).

''Stackpole, E. A. 1972. Whales & Destiny: The Rivalry between America, France, and Britain for Control of the Southern Whale Fishery, 1785-1825. The University of Massachusetts Press.''


 * In the 19th century over 230,000 Sperm Whales may have been killed by the various whaling nations,

''Davis, L.E., R.E. Gallman, and K.Gleiter. 1997. In Pursuit of Leviathan: technology, institutions, productivity, and profits in American whaling, 1816-1906. NBER series on long-term factors in economic development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.''


 * while nearly 800,000 were caught in the modern era, the majority between 1946 and 1980.

The above total was made by myself, primarily by compiling information fron the International Whalng Statistics available on luna.pos, in the History of Modern Whaling (Tonnessen and Johnsen 1982) and the reviews of illegal Soviet whaling, and a few other sources I can't think of off the top of my head.


 * Further evidence of larger bulls in the past resides in New Bedford museum, a 5.2 metres (17 ft) jaw of a bull that could have been about 21.7 metres (68 ft) long, with a maximum mass of about 100 tons. In addition, logbooks found in the Nantucket and New Bedford museums are filled with references to bulls that were, considering the amount of oil they yielded, about the same size as these two examples —although whalers were notorious for exaggerating the yield of oil and length of whales they caught.

I spoke about why the above length should be lessened on the talk page, while I guess I won't mind removing the latter section about exaggerated yield of oil, although I still woulnd't trust any "estimates" given of the length of certain individuals. I didn't write the parts about the jaws found in the museums. In fact, I'm not sure if anyone provided references for those, although I have read a journal where a jaw of similar lengths was mentioned. Jonas Poole (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information. I added the references.  I did make a few wording changes to match what I found in the books you mentioned.  For example, I changed the "over 230,000" whales in the 19th century to an estimated 184,000 to 236,000, based on my understanding of what was in the book.  I also changed the "almost 800,000" whales caught in the modern era to "over 600,000", since that is what can be supported by the "official" web site, and the Soviet catches would be considered "original research" in the GA review.  But I did note that the "over 600,000" excludes undocumented Soviet catches.  I think that number is impressive enough under the circumstances. Rlendog (talk) 02:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I had put the higher figure of 236,000 because it was based on Best's (1983) more reliable estimate of 33.6 barrels per whale plus 10 per cent for whales struck and killed but lost. I don't know how Stevenson (1904) came to his estimate of 45 barrels per whale, and plus it just seems much too high. But I guess we should leave it as it is to give a more balanced estimate.


 * Oh, and I got a copy of Dudley's Essay on Jstor (from which CapeCodHistory.us copied it from) and it said 1720. With that in mind I'll be reverting it back to the former date. Jonas Poole (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Dudley's Essay
I had actually used A.G. Mawar's Ahab's Trade (1999), not even thinking that Dudley's essay was available online. Thanks for the info. Jonas Poole (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we may have a little bit of an issue here. We have Mawar's date of 1720, which could very well be a typo, and 1710 from a copy of Dudley's essay. I'll look around and see if there are any microfilms of the original available online to settle the matter. I think 1710 should stay for now, as I would think a copy would be more reliable than what a secondary sources says considering how notorious they can be about getting things off (just read Jackson's The British Whaling Trade (1978) or Ellis' Men & Whales (1991) and their sources and you'll see what I mean). Jonas Poole (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Illegal Soviet Whaling in the North Pacific
I finally remembered what one of my other sources was (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/po2007whsp-cow.pdf) I had complied the figures beginning in February 2007, so I had to look through all these old notes to find references. Since the total "official" figure I came to was over 683,000 (1910-87), and Brownell estimated that 89,000 sperm whales were unreported by Soviet whaling in the North Pacific between 1949 and 1979, perhaps the total should be over 770,000? Also I added that the Japanese also illegally caught sperm whales in the North Pacific. I can't remember my reference for that one though, but I imagine you'll find plenty on Google Scholar. Jonas Poole (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I updated the wording, number and footnote accordingly. Rlendog (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Washington Nationals Opening Day starting pitchers
I have responded to the issues you raised at Featured list candidates/List of Washington Nationals Opening Day starting pitchers and I hope that I have made changes to address your concerns. If you have any other issues or suggestions, please let me know. Alansohn (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Gallery use in an article
I would like your opinion on the use of a gallery in the Ring-tailed Lemur article. I was considering the use of the following gallery at the bottom of the "Anatomy and physiology" section:

I'd really like to use these images in the article, but can't think of any other way. Your thoughts? - Visionholder (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Ruffed Lemur

 * Probably didn't deserve this one, since it turned out that the author would have nominated it anyway. Rlendog (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I posted a capitalization question here. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate work
I saw your article at DYK nomination for List of Kansas City Royals Opening Day starting pitchers just as User:Alansohn/List of Kansas City Royals Opening Day starting pitchers was nearing completion. Talk about wasted effort. I ddin't want to start the article in mainspace until it was done. Is there any coordination of these efforts? Alansohn (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Crap. Sorry about that.  I didn't realize you were working on that too.  I don't think there is any coordination of these.  I just saw the red link and starting putting it together.  For what its worth, the next one I plan to work on is the San Francisco Giants.  But I don't know that someone else won't beat me to it.Rlendog (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Before I post to the Primate FAC...
I'm not sure if it's my place to post comments on the Primate FAC, given that I'm still going through my first FAC with Ring-tailed Lemur. However, I have some concerns about some generalizations regarding the decreased use of olfaction in primates, as well as the 3 main groupings: prosimians, New World monkeys, and Old World monkeys. Would you prefer that you and I discuss them here first, or should I go ahead and post them to the Primate FAC?

BTW: If people agree that changes need to be made, I will volunteer to change the wording. - Visionholder (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * First, let me just acknowledge a possible conflict of interest, since I have been involved with the Primate article and FAC. That out of the way... You are perfectly welcome to post comments regarding the Primate FAC.  But do you think your concerns are controversial?  My initial thought is that for the olfactory issue, if you have a clarification, just edit the article.  You know what you are talking about and I'm sure the edit will be an improvement.  You can do the same with your concern about the split.  Although, if the latter concern is with the sentence in the article's lead, you may want to make sure that it won't complicate the sentence for less knowledgeable readers, since I think there has been some wordsmithing of the lead already.  Otherwise, just post your comment in the FAC review and see what comes out of it.  If the issue is the fact that the prosimian vs. monkey is no longer taxonomically (is that a word?) valid, I suspect that the reason the lead reads the way it does is that it represents the "traditional" groupings, and the current taxonomically correct groupings are discussed in detail further in the article under evolution and classification.  Although rereading, it may be better to replace the sentence in the lead with "The Primates order is informally divided has traditionally been divided into three main groupings", or something like that.  In any case, the worst that can happen is that someone reverts you (if you edit) or disagrees with you (if you comment). Rlendog (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Opening Day starting pitchers
I was just trying to be cosistent with the List of Washington Nationals Opening Day starting pitchers. Also, I would like to co-nominate this article with you for FLC if it is possible. Thanks. --  SRE.K.A nnoyomous .L. 24 [c] 19:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! Rlendog (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I added the scores, but for some reason the scores that start with 10 and 12 come up between 1 and 2 when I sort. I think I used the same syntax as in the List of Washington Nationals Opening Day starting pitchers, so I am not sure what I am doing wrong. Rlendog (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, just add my name with it. Thanks! --  SRE.K.A nnoyomous .L. 24 [c] 03:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Opening Day Starting Pitcher Lists
I've been trying to add final scores to the Opening Day Starting Pitcher lists I have been working on, most recently List of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Opening Day starting pitchers, following your lead from List of Washington Nationals Opening Day starting pitchers. But I am running into a sorting problem. Scores that start with a 10 or above are coming out between 1 and 2 when I sort. I think I used the same syntax as you did for List of Washington Nationals Opening Day starting pitchers, but it doesn't seem to work for me. Do you know what I could be doing wrong? Thanks. Rlendog (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all of your work on filling in these lists. What I've been doing in the sort parameter is using a two-digit score, with a leading zero its under 10. This seems to allow the sort to work in order by number of runs scored by the home team. Alansohn (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea! Thanks for your help! Rlendog (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sperm Whale
Most of my points have been addressed. Reading through it there are still some modifications that need to be made before a run at FSC is made (mostly tightening up the prose) but I think it is fair enough to shoot for GAN now. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  02:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just nominated it. Rlendog (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)