User talk:Sarusscape

Care of chicks
Needs to be covered in the article. Are the chicks fed by the parents initially ? Shyamal (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No literature on this yet. Sarusscape (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * How prompt! But good to know that you figured out the talk page! Shyamal (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting viewership statistics

 * Viewership for Sarus crane Shyamal (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

IP block exemption
I am not sure why your IP is being blocked but I have added you to block exempted groups. Shyamal (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Damselfly
Hi, your additions are clearly well-intentioned but are somewhat problematic. The main issue is whether details from primary research papers on individual species should go into a reviewed, top-level article on a major taxon. The general answer is clearly "No", we should not change a major article for every piece of primary research which may or may not be substantiated later. You are always free to add such details to the individual species articles, which are far less visible.

Another issue is the use of English, which has necessitated immediate copy-editing.

A more serious matter is something that has now happened twice in quick succession: you have inserted some material in the middle of a paragraph, splitting one piece of existing cited text from its citation. This either makes it look uncited, or worse makes it seem that it is in the new citation you have added; either way, the internal structure of the article is thereby broken. This directly reduces the quality of the article, and with the passage of time, such errors become harder and harder to fix as people would have to search far back in the article history to work out exactly what had been broken and when.

It may be best if you avoid editing high-level articles for the moment until you have sufficient practice in adding materials safely. The question of when primary research is important enough to justify changing a high-level article which has passed formal review is a tricky one. The only general answer is "when people familiar with the field are sure that the work is valid and that the change is significant at that level", in other words, competence in both science and in editing is required. A good guide is that when primary research has found its way into textbooks or systematic review articles, it is time to include it in Wikipedia. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, some of your points are fair.
 * Foot waggling is very poorly highlighted despite a lot of observations on the behaviour. One reason might be that many of the observations are detailed in relatively older publications. I confess to becoming excited about the behaviour after observing it in the wild in species whose ecology is poorly described. Perhaps it should have already been regarded as "important", but like many things in ecology and natural history, is hardly commented on.
 * Your point on research making its way into textbook is not widely accepted since there is a good amount of bias in what gets "recognized". Your description is one way to identify primary research, but helping findings become primary (via inclusion of observations in wikipedia for example) is not a bad way to go.
 * In any case, I do this activity as a way to read more and share things that I get excited about. Will certainly focus on better english and inserting references in a more standardized way. Sarusscape (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)