User talk:Umimmak/Archive 2

Disambiguation link notification for November 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tarsius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carlito ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Tarsius check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Tarsius?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Writers Guild of America Award for Television: New Series, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mike Flanagan and Ryan Murphy ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Writers_Guild_of_America_Award_for_Television:_New_Series check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Writers_Guild_of_America_Award_for_Television:_New_Series?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Shawn Mendes
Your addition of 'Shawn Mendes is heterosexual' is very strange without relevant context as I tried to insert. Why are you adding in that he is heterosexual if not to buy into the speculation yourself. It is a very odd inclusion on a Wikipedia page without some context. You do not see the same insertions on say Tom Cruise, Barrack Obama pages for instance or millions of other celebrity pages. I suggest you delete the 'Shawn Mendes is heterosexual' statement if you do not put some context of why you are adding it in. Discopup (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Why did you edit to say he was gay if that goes against all sources? You can discuss its inclusion on the talk page for the article. Umimmak (talk)

DYK for Comparative illusion
Vanamonde93 00:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Acanthosquilla derijardi
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Aw, thank you for the reminder :) Umimmak (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * ... now two ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Liaisons, Re-Imagining Sondheim from the Piano (album art).jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Type strains in infobox (and mea culpa)
Whoops! Just realized I archived the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microbiology discussion you had just added your signature to regarding type strains in infoboxes. As best I can tell, there has never been any discussion as to what is appropriate to put into the type strain parameter of the infobox. Most editors leave it blank, but some add the various strain designations as you did. At this point it seems to be a matter of personal preference. If you feel it's important to have a consensus on the matter, we could try again to stimulate conversation on the topic as you did last May. Sorry you got 10 months of silence in return! Hopefully the back-and-forth on Methylophaga muralis wasn't too disruptive. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * no worries about archiving; it wouldn’t have been an issue had I remembered to sign in the first place when I originally posted. And I just wanted to confirm there a consensus to remove and that I wasn’t breaking protocol. Thanks! Umimmak (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Liaisons: Re-Imagining Sondheim from the Piano
DYKUpdateBot (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

RuPaul's Drag Race
With all respect, I believe you're jumping the gun on "consensus." By definition, there's no consensus if a closure is going through a formal RfC admin review.

While that review process is still ongoing, we're supposed to keep the longstanding status-quo version of a page until the review is complete. This RfC's closer exceeded the scope of the RfC, which renders the RfC's headline deceptive and misleading. That's my reasonable contention — and we're supposed to let admins decide if the closure was proper or not. Right now, that hasn't been decided, so there's non "consensus."

We have a U.S. president with no respect for laws — I'd like to think we're better than that, and that we have respect for our processes. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I’ll let the conversation carry on where it’s already been brought up instead of further responding here. Umimmak (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject LGBT studies
I'm okay with helping out with the wikiproject from time to time, if I can learn what exactly would be helpful for the Wikiproject. I don't think I fit any of the categories mentioned for the project (I've never experienced sexual attraction to anyone at all, to be specific), but I would like to help out if I can. It's also one of the more active wikiprojects I've seen, so if it can use another editor, I'd like to join. It's also signifigant to me because it's a topic that is signifigant to a lot of my friends.

I also might be able to help out with more Canadian-specific topics... because I live in Canada. Not everything that occurs locally is recorded in online sources. Clovermoss (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The only qualification needed is a desire to improve Wikipedia's coverage on/articles about these topics :) See: Anyone with a Wikipedia user account—regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity—is free to join I'm not sure what the best places for you to be would be but there are plenty of tasks under WikiProject LGBT studies; I myself just work on articles which interest me but I keep an eye on certain WikiProject talk pages in case I think my views/knowledge might be welcome. If you want to formally join just add your name to WikiProject LGBT studies. But any help is appreciated :) Umimmak (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Joined! Thanks for the reply. Clovermoss (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Queens at Heart
valereee (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters
Fyi: re Page size. Pyxis Solitary  (yak)  02:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Eskimo
Sorry about this. I didn't realise I'd added that line in your comments. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, figured it was probably unintentional. Thanks :) Umimmak (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Cambridge university press
Hi, if you have access to the collection of Cambridge UP through WP:LIBRARY, can you tell me what is the process to download the books? When I click on the download option on the tool bar, it says the items are not downloadable. Happening with every books I have searched. Btw you guys are doing an amazing job at WP:RX, thanks a ton. -- Zayeem  (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have WP:LIBRARY access for Cambridge, is there a particular book you're looking for though? I know I've had issues with Cambridge UP from other library subscriptions in the past where they had some books available for download but never the ones I wanted. In the search page there should be a Only show content I have access to option, try searching for anything with that checked to see if you can download anything -- it might just be that WP:LIBRARY doesn't offer that many books from Cambridge. Not a resource I'm particularly familiar with, hopefully you can find someone who can better answer your questions. Umimmak (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Two books in particular, Schendel, Willem van. (2009). A history of Bangladesh and Lewis, David (2011). Bangladesh : politics, economics, and civil society. I did some more search and you're right, there is a very limited access, especially for books in the field I'm looking at. -- Zayeem  (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

PressReader
Hey there, I saw your comment here, and wonder if you have access to sources on PressReader? I'm trying to get access to the British Archaeology issue here; if you do have access, any chance you might be able to lend a hand? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * yeah I can see the issue, what article do you need? Umimmak (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Awesome, thanks! I'm looking for the article on the excavations at Scremby, which begins on page 32 and (I think) ends on page 39. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * if you email me, I'll be able to attach a PDF in my reply. Umimmak (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hopefully that works for you. Umimmak (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Got it, thanks! --Usernameunique (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Beatrice Honikman
Many thanks for the reference, which I'll gladly add to the draft. I've never looked at that reference book - I have a feeling it's one of those volumes that you have to pay to be included in! RoachPeter (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC notice
This is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment at. Nardog (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Boo!


Happy Halloween!

Hello : Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween! —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Taxobox for monotypic genera
Hi, it's standard practice across the tree of life for articles on monotypic genera which therefore also cover the sole species to have a taxobox which targets both the genus and the species. You can check by looking at the articles in Category:Monotypic animal genera and its subcategories. See also Template:Speciesbox. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for the heads up; for some reason I thought that only applied for articles whose title was a common name like Numbat. The documentation for a template is I think not the only place this policy should be stated; perhaps it could go in WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA because it's certainly not intuitive. I'll I guess see that this is policy on Wikipedia, but if the title, categories, article is about the genus (which happens to have one species), then the infobox should correspond, no? How do you cite the type species of a genus (when it sometimes has a different combination/name from the valid name for the sole species) when the infobox is only for the species? Whereas when the infobox is about the genus it's easy enough to list the species and type species separately.... I realize you're just letting me know the policy exists and I appreciate it; I'll refrain from changing them in the future, but it seems like a less than ideal policy... Umimmak (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that it's an inevitable consequence of the policy of having only one article on monospecific genera, covering both ranks, at the genus (when not ambiguous) rather than at the species. (Some other language wikis have an article for every rank, a few use the lowest rank.) The text of an article on a monospecific genus is inevitably almost entirely about the species because unless the genus previously had more species and has been re-circumscribed, there's not much to say about it. So the taxobox and the taxonbar target the sole species as well as the genus.
 * The type species issue is an interesting one. It would certainly be possible to add a  parameter to Speciesbox to cover the few cases where the sole (remaining) species is not the type species of the genus. I tested it in the sandbox (now reverted), but it does look odd because the type species row isn't clearly linked to the genus. It's not unconnected with the problem of displaying synonyms when both the genus and sole species have them, since there's only one box in the taxobox that they go in. For perfection, there could perhaps be a special version of Speciesbox for monospecific genera, which would show genus information (synonyms, type species if different from the sole species) separately from species information (synonyms). Whether this would be worthwhile I'm not sure: there are already too many different kinds of taxobox template for many editors (and for the maintainers!). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have now added a cross-link at WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA (and WP:MONOTYPICFLORA). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (when not ambiguous) yeah this also doesn't really make sense to me to be honest, like the way I would write an article about a genus with one species is different from the way I would write an article about a species that's the only representative of its genus in terms of like the structure of the article, the framing, its categories, etc. (I've had to rewrite plenty of articles when a page move happens without any consideration for the text of the article), so it seems less than ideal that some other article wholly outside of taxonomy would affect the way two otherwise analogous taxa would be treated, but I guess that's all besides the point. And at least with displaying synonyms of different ranks you can still jury-rig a solution using bold text to create subheadings, like there's still a way to have all the information in the infobox -- see Spotted turtle. A wholly separate taxobox just for the type species of these edge cases I agree is less than ideal...but I realize I don't think I'll have any success about changing the way Wikipedia handles monotypic genera. Anyway, thanks for clarifying the taxobox situation in the WP page and again for the heads up. Umimmak (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to pursue this unnecessarily, and you may know this already, but it's not exactly "jury-rigged" that the monotypic taxa are in bold at an article like Spotted turtle. The automated taxobox system wikilinks the genus Clemmys, and the wikimedia software replaces the wikilink by bold text because it is a self-link. Amborella is an example with four ranks in bold. Here the higher rank taxonomy templates, like Template:Taxonomy/Amborellaceae, could be described as "jury-rigged", because the link field has to be set to "Amborella" to get the bold text replacing a self-link in the taxobox. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I just meant it as an example of having synonyms for different ranks within one infobox; I’m not sure the separate collapsable lists or bold headings within the synonyms parameter for genus-level and species-level synonyms is within the template documentation so that’s what felt like an ad hoc solution to me, but one that works as a way to show all relevant synonyms got all taxa covered by the article. (although since there is in fact a separate article for the genus I’m not sure why it’s in that article…) Umimmak (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoops, the genus is not in bold at Spotted turtle, and should not be, because, as you point out, there's a separate genus article.
 * I have thought about separate headings/boxes being provided for the two kinds of synonyms – it's on the "Inactive but not done or dead" part of my over-long "to do" list – but there seemed little or no interest in the idea. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK for H. Radclyffe Roberts
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Gea eff
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Father Chrysanthus
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dessert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cocoa. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

List of organisms named after the Harry Potter series
If that link was placed there by the person who wrote the article, and is most likely the person who is also the subject of the article, then yes, that's spamming. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * it seems then the bigger issue is with the article Alireza Zamani then, and if he isn’t notable it should be AfD’d? Umimmak (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, for me the bigger issue that we have an undeclared COI editor who's plugging himself and his colleague. I really have no opinion on what their notability might be but I encourage you to look at their articles--it seems to me that you can assess notability better than I can. BTW I don't know if linking the name of the person who named the animal is common practice for taxa, but it strikes me as...well, overlinking, really. If someone wants to know who named some critter, and if that's objectively important, then text with a secondary source should enable the reader to make that link. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, the alleged COI/lack of demonstrated notability to me is an issue with the articles themselves? I don’t read Farsi, so hard for me to judge some of the secondary sources, might be worth asking people in WT:Spiders to see if they’ve heard of these people. I’m personally hesitant to tag articles with COI templates in general just out of a lack of experience; I perhaps naïvely like to think someone might just want to write an article about two people who’ve given a lot of “catchy” names to animals. Articles about animals named after pop culture figures are interesting to some for their inherent “hookiness”, and I could imagine someone being curious about the people behind these naming decisions, but I admittedly haven’t done a deep dive into their editing history so I’ll defer to your judgement. But whatever issues are with Yuri M. Marusik seem to apply to Alireza Zamani (if not moreso — I’d wager a 28 year old with an MSc is significantly less likely to fulfill WP:NACADEMIC than a 60 year old with a PhD).
 * Also, for what it’s worth, MOS:ORGANISM says When one is provided, an author's name should be linked if there is an article to link to for what it’s worth. Umimmak (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting--that's a really long MOS proposal. Well, how I think about this is probably not going to matter. Yes, the sourcing was in Persian, and that's why I wasn't sure; it's entirely possible that it's all nothing, but I was also focusing on other things. The pop culture--that's gotta be a new gimmick, because those funky names were all sourced to hip websites, and one even to the Smithsonian magazine. So that's how you can help make yourself notable! Anyway, the COI, as far as I'm concerned, is a given. If you want to reinstate those names, go ahead: I assume you don't have a COI with them. Again, that wasn't my problem, the COI was. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Ich bin ein Berliner
Dates are just data. What do you expect as having any other data? Do you like to revert your edit? Guidod (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * A secondary source is needed to say that those data are relevant and important. Wikipedia in general does not cite primary sources. Umimmak (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * So you say that Wikipedia editors are not able to make sensible judgements? How able do you feel yourself that you do not want to make a decision because your answer reflects that avoidance. Guidod (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * see WP:PRIMARY, as well as the caveats about citing Wikipedia in WP:CIRCULAR. Please continue any further discussion on Talk:Ich bin ein Berliner since this concerns all editors who work on that article, not just me. Umimmak (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It does concern only you as you keep referring to bureaucratic rules. If you dont like the discussion on the reasons for the rules then we can of course just stop here. Guidod (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2022 (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) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Superiorglitchcuba
Sorry! I'm new to wikipedia, I just wanted to talk about this. I found the most authentic source (go to #60, intro button has all files). It's still github though, it comes from an organization that describes itself as, "an international conference which has established itself as the premier European venue for interdisciplinary psycholinguistic research." It appears to me, at the very least, to be a legitimate source.

I, also, thought that it would fit in the comparative illusion wiki. They are both similar in that they are grammatically incorrect sentences that are believed to be grammatically correct. To me, the missing-vp illusion is more fitting than "depth charge" sentences so it belongs too. I am new to editing wikipedia, and you clearly have a lot of experience - especially with the comparative illusion wiki - which is why I wanted to bring my thoughts to you. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superiorglitchcuba (talk • contribs) 18:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Neotrombicula fujigmo
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion Invitation: Steve Reich
Regarding my Steve Reich edits: I'm not sure how two sentences in a relatively lengthy article, supported by mainstream news sources and a widely published book, is giving this undue weight? Surely a widely discussed racist statement that Reich made is relevant, especially since his Wikipedia article highlights some of his music as a response to African cultural influences (his experiences in Ghana), racial tensions within US (in "Come Out"), etc. Should I add more sources for this, or are you opposed to the idea of including it at all? If so, why? LouMichel (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll respond on the talk page of the article. Umimmak (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Lustrum (journal)
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Aw, thank you for this, ! It definitely brought a smile to my face and it's inspiration to keep working harder at Wikipedia! :) Umimmak (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Virgin in Prayer
Umimmak, I was wondering whether you were planning to return to this nomination to review the proposed replacement hook. If not, please let me know, and I'll call for a new reviewer. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh I’m so sorry, I didn’t realize a new hook had been proposed! I kinda don’t think this new hook is that interesting either, but I might be overly strict. I’m also not sure my qualms about the painting’s notability or the overall writing style of the article have been addressed, but again I might be too strict here. I think a new reviewer might be good just in case I’m being too strict, apologizes for the delay; thank you for following up and letting me know. Umimmak (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail!
SN54129 22:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)