User talk:WolfmanSF/Archive6

Christina1969 sock?
+ could use an opinion or three on WelcometoJurassicPark. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure why you asked for my opinion here, but I have seen a lot of (too much) drama recently so I am going to respectfully decline to offer an opinion. I hope this is OK. DrChrissy (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a prob, I just grabbed two names from the editing history of Dreadnoughtus, where you dealt with her once before. Apologies, Chrissy. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, almost certainly a sock of his, given the unusual focus on measurements of megafaunal species and other repetitive behaviors. At least he seems to have gotten over his fixation with using a maximal number of significant digits. Sorry, pinged the wrong 'Ed' on the first attempt. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Seleucids
Do you have a source mentioning that they were declining ? --Makeandtoss (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Look at Seleucid Empire. Unfortunately, they don't have inline citations for this section. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Putting that they were declining in the Battle of Cana article, sounds like a reason to why they failed. I feel that this is somehow original research.. --Makeandtoss (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. To leave that info out would be misleading, in my view, and would suggest a POV bias in the article. It was formerly a vast empire, but by then was a small state with very limited resources.WolfmanSF (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Overall decline doesn't necessarily mean they were weak during the battle/during the 80s BC. --Makeandtoss (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It certainly means they were weaker than when their empire was huge. And we don't say that, anyway. The reader can draw his own conclusion. If our goal is to be objective, we don't want the reader to be under the impression that the relatively small Nabatean kingdom was taking on a vast and healthy empire. The point of the article is to inform as to what actually happened, not to create the idea that that the Nabateans had some kind of mystical military élan that allowed them to defeat the Greeks no matter what the odds. That would be a partisan POV viewpoint, exactly what we want to avoid. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A battle isn't a showcase of military power, Nabataeans were superior just cause they managed to kill the king. Anyway, the sources of the battle mention 87 BC instead of 84 BC.. --Makeandtoss (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you care to research the most reliable date, you might edit both articles to make them consistent. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Few sources exist for the battle, all of which mention 87 BC. --Makeandtoss (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If he assumed the throne in 87 BC then nvm. --Makeandtoss (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

World View please
your reverts to the Pocket mouse page, and particularly your latest edit summary, are imposing the view that some mammals from North America are all that matter, and a popular Australian children's radio program and the books that it spawned should be removed from mention for the crime of being "rather obscure". Dominating the world much? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * At the moment, as far as I can see (using the "What links here" function), there is not a single link to "Pocket mouse" anywhere in Wikipedia that refers to the subject of your concern, so it doesn't seem to be an issue of much practical importance. However, I've added a note to the top of the Perognathinae which I hope will solve the problem. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Subspeciesbox and extinct marker
Hi, you're right that Subspeciesbox doesn't handle marking extinction properly. It works when the genus is extinct, but not when the genus is extant and the species or just the subspecies is extinct. I'm working on changing the template – I got it wrong in my first change, but anyway realized that it's more complicated to fix than I first thought.

I'd be glad of a cross-check. If you look around taxoboxes, there's a lot of inconsistency as to when the † is used. I think the idea is as per Woolly mammoth, where Speciesbox puts it in the "body" of the taxobox (there on the genus and species), but not on the final binomial name. So Subspeciesbox should reproduce what you did manually at American lion, i.e. put † in the body of the taxobox wherever needed but not on the final trinomial name. Is this what you understand? Peter coxhead (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. At least until recently, the general usage was to put it in front of all extinct taxa in the list of Linnaean rankings, but not in front of the final full binomial or trinomial, which makes sense to me. WolfmanSF (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks; makes sense to me too. I'll try to fix Subspeciesbox to produce this behaviour. The issue is that the three automated taxobox templates for taxa below genus (Speciesbox, Subspeciesbox and Infraspeciesbox) get their taxonomic information from the taxonomy template for the genus, so if the extinction status of either the species or subspecies is different from the genus, they don't work correctly. It may be that the solution is to use the parent Automatic taxobox template in such cases; I'm not yet sure. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I've got Subspeciesbox to produce the behaviour you coded manually at American lion, other than the link on the †. The link is difficult or impossible to insert automatically, because the code producing one line of the Linnaean ranks doesn't know whether this is the first † or not, so either you end up with all †'s linked or none. If you feel that the wikilink is important, then revert to the manual taxobox. (I still have work to do on the case where the genus is extant but the species is extinct.) Peter coxhead (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That sounds good. If there was a straightforward way to add one link for "extinct" it might be useful, but if not, fine. Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

"Via" is redundant: "in" is the proper preposition
The rest of the sentence makes the use of "via" redundant, if you have read it. And "via" is an example of the worst type of journalese, which you have obviously adopted. It should be limited to the geographical sense or it will eventually replace all prepositions. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so let's not sink to that level. Autodidact1 (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The wording issue is moot at this point in light of subsequent revisions. It might have originally been better worded "in their upper digestive system via reingestion of cecotropes", but the use of via in that sentence is consistent with common usage, which I would not equate with "journalese". WolfmanSF (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Updated
Have updated with higher quality secondary sources the vitamin C and cataract bit. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Doc James, I like your references and contribution, but do not agree with the deletion of the primary sources or removal of the heading, and will adjust accordingly. P.S. I'm pretty sure I heard you talk a few years ago when you visited UCSF. Regards, WolfmanSF (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * With respect to primary sources, we tend not to include them per WP:MEDRS. Inadequate vitamin C is an association with fairly decent evidence from the Cochrane review that it is not a direct cause (or at least replacement does not make a difference). Thus the more neutral vitamin C is the prefered heading IMO. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please go to the cataract talk page. You're now flirting with edit warring with your reverts of these grammar errors and this should be discussed on the talk page if you're going to be insistent. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

TRAPPIST-1 habitable zone
Hi WolfmanSF, I added "clearly" because of this cited ref, which states: "Three of these planets are firmly located in the habitable zone, the area around the parent star where a rocky planet is most likely to have liquid water." Another article seems to imply that all seven planets could be within the habitable zone. Obviously the exact zone is debatable. Gillon et 2017 paper itself does not explicitly address what could be considered "habitable". Best, --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Robert, it would be most logical if there was a one-to-one correspondence between the possibility of surface liquid water and being situated within the habitable zone, but it isn't that simple, as the following quote from your second source indicates: "Any of the TRAPPIST-1 planets could have water on them, though the three in the habitable zone are more likely to have liquid water." For example, planets with very reflective atmospheres closer in than the habitable zone, or planets with very strong greenhouse effects outside the habitable zone, could still have liquid water. It's quite difficult to figure out if liquid water might actually be present, but pretty straightforward to figure out if a planet is in the currently defined habitable zone. I interpret the "firmly" remark from the first source as meaning that the planets aren't at the border of the zone, rather than implying that the zone's extent is uncertain. So, I think it best to remove "clearly" from the sentence because it could be misinterpreted. Regards, WolfmanSF (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for the explanation, and I think your point is well taken. I don't really have any serious problem with your edit. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Gillon et al 2017 also mention tidal heating for the planets outside the zone. Perhaps this is something that could be added to our article, since the Nature reviewers allowed them to include it in the paper. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Tidal heating (suggested as being possibly operative on h) is speculative at this point because we don't know its very well orbit yet. They also mention the possibility of a thick heat-retaining hydrogen atmosphere, which is also speculative. From my perspective, this could be mentioned in the article for h, but doesn't really need to be mentioned in the article on the TRAPPIST-1 system. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Verreaux's eagle
Hmm... I can only assume I somehow updated an older version of the article. (Sometimes, when trying to figure out what reference is missing, I look through old versions to see what's changed and when people request references — i.e. has the question been answered and the "needs reference" not removed.) Thanks for assuming good faith though! ;) MeegsC (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that solves that mystery, i guess. WolfmanSF (talk)

Operation Anthropoid
Thanks for your correction of my edit at Operation Anthropoid. I did not realize the person mentioned in the following sentence provided the information about Hitler suggesting to Himmler, which makes the active "send" more appropriate.68.40.122.133 (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Kepler-80
Hi Wolfman,

first off, thanks for your hard work on Wikipedia. I noticed you keep adding back resonances to the "orbital resonances article with absurdly large numbers. Could you please provide scientifically-sound references for these?  In the referenced articles, I can't find the numbers 62:41, and my training as a scientist tells me those are doubtful.  A true resonance usually is a ratio of small integers, and a large prime like 41 certainly looks weird in that light.  I don't have the time to read the original papers right now, but this just doesn't look right (also see section on coincidences, in the very same article).  So if you want these numbers in here, could you please link to a scientific article which explicitly reports them?

Marquenterre (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have replied at Talk:Orbital resonance. The values do come from the MacDonald et al. (2016) paper, but a little simple algebra is needed to extract them. If this does not clarify things, we can discuss this further. By the way, "coincidences" are not true resonances, and at least in many cases are likely just due to random chance. Also, in reference to "absurdly large numbers", 121:118 mean motion resonances have been described for Saturn's moons Prometheus and Pandora. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

parthenogenesis and invasion
Dear WolfmanSF, I've just noted your changes in the article about parthenogenesis. It is very good you added this point: invasive asexual species are a major problem, and indeed it is sometimes only evident when introduced to a new area as parthenogenesis isn't always noted in the native range. I changed the article a bit, as several of the statements didn't quite fit with what was written in the cited papers or in the commonly accepted literature. For example, these introduced species do not switch to asexual reproduction when introduced; rather, their (partial) asexual reproduction allows them to invade a new area. Also in Nematus oligospilus the two-fold cost of sex wasn't shown; in fact, this has been shown in only very few species. I think the aphids are quite well known in this respect (many species are cyclical sexual/asexual in the native range and when introduced solely asexual, e.g. many species in Australia), so I added these. Do let me know if you would like me to explain things further. Best Pigmentkleur (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, your refinements to the paragraph have obscured the explanation for why parthenogenesis facilitates invasion. I think we should try to retain an explicit statement of the advantages, since they will not be obvious to all readers. Regards, WolfmanSF (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Dire wolf
Hello WolfmanSF. You may be aware that Season 7 of Game of Thrones has just been released, it will feature the "fantasy" dire wolves once again which will generate interest from readers, and coordinated with this launch the Dire wolf is Today's Featured Article - through early planning. Thank you for your improvements to the article over the past six months; these are appreciated. I have recently transferred material from the "Dentition and biteforce" section, plus the "Extinction" section that you have recently been involved with. I have done so because (a) these are the most appropriated articles for this text, (b) the article was about to be exposed as a TFA and I did not want to ignite edits from readers over extinction theories, and (c) it gives us a bit more space to include future studies (i.e. the Beringian/Dire wolf hybrids found in Idaho). I made these changes late at night in my time, knowing that the TFA was about to happen. I apologize to you for the abruptness of these edits, and be assured that they were made after much consideration and not made lightly. Regards, William Harris •   (talk) •  09:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't know about the Game of Thrones connection; I had been curious as to why it has been such a highly viewed article. Thanks for that insight. I understand the desire not to edit excessively just before an article goes on the main page. Afterwards, we can perhaps reconsider expanding the discussion of extinction a bit, as it is relevant. WolfmanSF (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. I have had to make a change to Extinction based on some dates that I found today. I would have preferred to amend this tomorrow only we had 9,440 YBP in the lead, so someone will notice the conflict between the lead and the body. We can all chat further on the articles Talk page regarding how much should be included under Extinction. Now, back to fighting the vandals.............Regards, William Harris •   (talk) •  10:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity
Articles that you have been involved in editing&mdash; Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity&mdash;have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Nessie (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for fixing my edit to Antipodes. I hit a wrong key and mangled my entry, but before I could get to a proper computer to deal with it, you did a great job repairing it. Kudos! ~ Jeff Q (talk)
 * No problem. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Moupin pika
Hello Wolfman! I noticed your copy edits on the Yarkand hare, and learned a lot! I wonder if you would like to GA review the Moupin pika. Have a great and colourful day! Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll try to look at the article soon and do a copy edit. Regards, WolfmanSF (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, Wolfman! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope the little pika has not slipped through the cracks. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Adityavagarwal, I did copyedit the article. On the other hand, I have generally avoided getting involved in the FA review process, mainly because I already spend too much time on Wikipedia and adding that activity has the potential to make things worse. Sorry, WolfmanSF (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Meteor
I consider your input, will not contest it, but can you elaborate what was at miss, since if true means I've to update the meteor article. Thnx prokaryotes (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I did a copyedit of the meteor article, which wasn't too bad; the main point is that the resonance would have been with Jupiter. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Megalodon!
What do you mean by "this is discussed and rejected"? on reverting my edit on Megalodon? Where was it discussed? I would like to know. Thanks. WarriorFISH (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's discussed in the 2nd and 3rd sentences of the article, and in the "Phylogeny" section. WolfmanSF (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Editing guidelines
Hello,

This is in reference to the recent advise that you gave me on editing. Could you just explain the definitions of "aggressive editing" in Wikipedia? I can then avoid breaking those guidelines. Achat1234 (talk) 07:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a defined term, it's my impression of your editing style, which seems rather relentless in comparison to the contributions of other editors (perhaps this stems in part from your use of a mobile device). For example, you edited American Lion ~63 times in the span of 5 days, which is unequaled in the history of the article. What I hope for is that you will be a bit more cautious in your editing, so other editors don't need to re-edit as much of the content you work on. Perhaps slowing down would help. Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. Yes, you are correct about my use of a mobile device. Mobile devices do not allow you to view the entire source of an page or switch between editors while editing. So you have to save your edits after a while. I will try to use the computer more often from now on. Achat1234 (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Black hole
That User:Nuztas1986 guy is at it again at Black hole


 * I'm well aware of that, but hamstrung by the 3-revert rule. In other words, it would be nice if others helped out. Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed everything he added anywhere. And see . We can keep an eye on things with our search engine. - DVdm (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dealing with this situation. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

CO2 ice on Mars
It would be really cool if you would talk to me instead of just undoing my correct edits. Fine, keep the wrong information you want to spread. The presence of a permanent cap has absolutely nothing to do with the prevalence of a seasonal cap. It's a different thermal evolution time scale, years vs hundreds/thousands of years. Even the, in general, out of date, dictionary that you (or the article) links to, alludes to the fact of the seasonal southern CO2 ice layer. It was also measure by the MOLA laser altimeter on the MGS mission, and is, in general, impossible to avoid, with the current thermal situation (obliquity) at Mars. Simply undoing stuff with a little editing comment is considered bad style on wikipedia, I thought? Maybe I'm wrong. Anyhow, done here, don't have time to argue simple thermal physics anymore... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maye (talk • contribs) 19:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We already state in the 1st paragraph that slabs of dry ice accumulate in both polar areas during the winter (this is repeated in the 3rd paragraph). The 2nd paragraph is dealing with the structure of the ice caps, and in the case of the southern cap the addition of 1 m of dry ice on top of ~8 m that's already there doesn't appreciably change the structure. Nothing is stated to imply that an additional 1 m doesn't accumulate; of course it does. To my way of thinking this series of edits was fairly trivial and didn't require a lengthy discussion. In general, I do think a Wikipedia editor needs a thick skin. No offense was intended. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Inactive site: under maintenance ... for 3 years
Dear WolfmanSF: The Infonatura site (cited for example on the Highlands punaré page) unfortunately displays the warning message Site Maintenance in Progress for more than 3 years: see September 2, 2014 → https://web.archive.org/web/20140301000000*/http://www.natureserve.org/infonatura/ This is not an informative link for the corresponding WP page. This is the reason why I tagged it as dead link, but you reverted this edit. Which alternative would you suggest? Thanks. Manudouz (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I added a few more and we can tag that link as "dead" for now. The site itself is still active. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Correct sizes
What I'm doing is I am correcting the sizes of some animals, as well as some prehistoric species with a size superior to what they should. I know what I do, everything that I edited is correct, the biggest moose, for example was about 820kg, bigger than any Irish elk. Also pre historic big cats were not that much bigger than any modern living cats like the tiger, which in the past some individuals reached 400kg, the difference between the largest pre historics is about 50kg at most. Again, trust me, I'm making those pages better
 * You must provide references to reliable sources for the changes you are making. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a mistake to compare the very largest members of a living species with a typical size range for an extinct species. Keep in mind that we have far more specimen data for living species than for extinct species. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)