User talk:Ruraltexas

Life, the universe and nine-banded armadillos*
(*With apologies to the late great Douglas Adams).

Hi Ruraltexas,

I got your email regarding nine-banded armadillos, the text of which I've copied below.


 * i was perusing the nine-banded armadillo article and came across your query concerning using WILDLIFE EXPLORER as a reference. i wholeheartedly agree with you, it is a bit dodgy.  i have a lifetime of experience with the nine-banded armadillo, on a personal level, and some of the information given in the article is plain wrong...i am going to revamp this article as time permits, it bothers me...long time armadillo fan...suggestions? advice? (Ruraltexas)

Perhaps the main point I make in various comments here and there in Wikipedia is the need for verifiable references. If, as I have the impression, you are a newcomer to Wikipedia, part of the trick is to get a handle on editing within Wikipedia. For my own part, I delved into it when I was culling a large personal library, which took me some 18 months to complete - such was the amount of information I had to wade through. My input to Wikipedia has dropped right off for now, as I deal with issues of an existential nature. So while your query deserves feedback, and your interest deserves encouragement, I personally am not in a position to be of much help at present. A while back I did offer some thoughts to another newcomer which you may find helpful, as they address general issues. Regards Wotnow (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Armadillos
The article's talk page is by far the best place to raise any concerns, so that all other interested editors can evaluate them - I'm no great authority on armadillos, I just happen to have the page on my watchlist. If something in an article is wrong and unsourced, and you have a correction that is sourced, by all means go ahead and make the edit, citing your source. If you think a given source is a bit dubious, WP:RS can help you establish whether or not the source is reliable - if it's clearly unreliable (if, say, it's just taken from an amateur-written web page), go ahead and remove it, but if it's in a bit of a grey area, it can be better to bring it up on the talk page first to see what other editors think.

As a general rule, though, be bold! If someone disagrees with your evaluation of the sources, they'll let you know. --McGeddon (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Phyllodonts
Hi, Ruraltexas;

You shouldn't have any trouble with notability. It's essentially an unwritten rule that anything at the genus level is notable (and in fact species level as well, but in my neck of the WP we usually only deal with genera because they're almost always monospecific, and producing both genus and species articles for, say, Ouranosaurus or Ornitholestes would lead to articles that are more or less duplicates). If you get anyone complaining about notability, let me know. J. Spencer (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)