User talk:Elmidae/Archive 1

Talk page

is it a violation to copy text from a public domain document. on the article thor experiment, i used text from nasa website hich you had tagged as copy right violation. since i am new to wikipedia , i am not aware of all he rules. thanks in advance. Iamsalin (talk) 07:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, what I can say is that the comment on the article Dusicyon avus is unclear. I meant 1600 years BP, and isn't BP the same as "years ago"? --Scottishwildcat12 (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The content you removed from the garibaldi fish is not spam. Put it back up. Garibaldi Clothing (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Following your teahouse question...

I have inspected the editor's edits, warned them, and also, because they seem to be a promotion only account, reported them as such. I use Twinkle to perform the warning and reporting actions. This was a great catch you made. Thank you. If I were an admin I would have taken direct action myself. Since I am not I chose the most expedient route.

I do suggest you deploy WP:TWINKLE (that page tells you how), and start by dealing with the most obvious cases. As you gain expertise and experience you will move easily to the more complicated things. You're welcome to give me a shout if you have questions, but I don't guarantee to know the answers. Fiddle Faddle 09:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There are at least three accounts, all sock puppets, who have all done the same thing. Also they have loaded a huge number or images to Commons. Admins here and there are on the case now, and it is all thanks to your spotting it. Fiddle Faddle 21:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For spotting a heavy duty spammer who has damaged a whole slew of articles, and for asking in one of the right places how to handle the problem Fiddle Faddle 09:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Hi, I'm replying here to your query about 64.8.131.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), as your report on WP:AIV will be removed very soon now that I have blocked them. IPs can't be permanently blocked, but since knowledgeable admins have repeatedly blocked for a whole year, I should think 2 years is all right, and that's what I've given them. The edits don't look like a university to me… very juvenile vandalism. Thanks for reporting. Bishonen | talk 19:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC).

Slavish?

You reverted a revert with an edit summary which I don't support. The summary of the cultural references has not been added "slavishly" but with an intention. Please go to the talk and find consensus. I would revert you if I hadn't done it for an IP before. It would be a good idea to follow WP:BRD: if an edit is questioned, the former state is returned and the edit discussed. I assume in good faith that you didn't know that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverted; can't be bothered right now to have a huge meta-discussion about this type of issue.--Elmidae (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Seen, thank you. I have no heartblood in there, reserve that for people ;) - I can understand avoiding discussions on a featured article, remembering The Rite of Spring: beginning with a harmless question, people sanctioned by arbcom (including me), resolved about two years later ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Great work on Smaller Plate Study Theroadislong (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverts

Don't pull that shit again. Nomoonman (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomoonman, you have an interesting approach to WP etiquette. Stop the name-calling and make your case; an edit war against established practice is unlikely to get you anywhere. -- Elmidae (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Antarctic, Common, minke whales

I notice you've had some dealings with these page, and some aggravation therein. I've left a comment here you may be interested in. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest JP/GC

Hello there:
Thanks for your note (sorry I haven't replied sooner; I was away for a bit) And welcome to the ever-widening circle of editors that Jonas/GammaC/Nomoon has managed to piss off royally over the years! Good work on clearing up his last mess; if you have any further problems just give us a shout (and sorry again I wasn't here last time) Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Dogs

Hello. As you know, dogs can't catch any cats, a cat can hear it sneaking up on it, they can climb trees to escape, can defend themselves, and if they do kill them they don't eat them. i know this as my cat's mother was killed and left by a dog. Most will agree they kill and leave. Dogs even do this with other animals. But i have a strong opinion and want everyone to know they have no predators. i promise i will leave this page if you just put that dogs kill them. Not prey on, but kill. it could mean the same thing. The source could be wrong too. Just put that they kill them and i will not edit again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.159.114.22 (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not how Wikipedia works. Your 'strong opinion' does not matter, and this is not a bargaining issue. The sources take precedence over your personal ideas. If you keep substituting unsourced opinions for sourced facts, you will be blocked.

Can I also point out that it is more than slightly ridiculous that you put your one experience of a cat being killed but not eaten above the published accounts of no less than five sources? I personally have seen African wildcats being killed and eaten by Rhodesian Ridgebacks. So now it's anecdote vs anecdote, and where does that leave us? With our stated mission - summarizing published sources. So please don't get yourself blocked on account of blockheadedness.-- Elmidae (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Fish articles (moved from user page)

Hello Elmidae, Thanks to correct my article and trying to improve it but I don't really agree with some of your changes. Like for example, mixing the distribution part with ecology, which for me, do not contain the same kind of information. Why trying to make absolutely shorter? With my plan, wikipedians can add information in the right part later on. Up to you to undo. Thanks. Bastaco (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, a matter of approach, I guess. I'd rather have the information well collated at any one point, and if someone wants to expand it, they can split it up into different categories again. I think it works all right in the current examples. But I'll refrain from combining stubby sub-headings in the fish articles you expand from now on, if you'd prefer.-- Elmidae (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Your country needs more of you

Hi Elmida, I've setup some style guides on WP:ZA. I noticed you've done a lot on the animals. Would you be interested in writing a style guide for future editors? The idea is to get more standardisation across these articles. The guide is should be structured in the same way as the article layout, you can have a look at the one I started for government cabinets. I haven't made a subpage for animals, perhaps you want too? Of course I also welcome your skills on the other style guides.

- That Video Shop Guy (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Is there any reason that articles should not just adhere to the general style guides for that subject area, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds#Naming? Seems a bit redundant to duplicate that stuff for ZA-related articles specifically.-- Elmidae (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realise there was a style guide on that subject, yes it does seem a bit redundant. Nevertheless, perhaps you might find it worth sharing your editing advice on a didn't category that does need something more specific like the parks or municipalities? - That Video Shop Guy (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Your help desk question

Your question was archived, and I don't have any idea how to answer it. The people who do might be at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

thank you

Hello Elmidae. I really wanted to thank for your recent edits on Rennell parrot. Being italian my spelling isn't that good. Owlsofeurope (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Elmidae. I really wanted to thank you for your recent edits on Rennell parrot. Being Italian my spelling isn't that good Owlsofeurope (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Owlsofeurope (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Pleasure :)-- Elmidae (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration

Hi, Elmidae - Thanks for looking at the M. beecheii article! I appreciate your feedback and have retained the changes on my article appropriately. However, the article that I am writing is for an Ecology class that I am currently enrolled in and my teacher has asked for a very specific format for the articles. I am forever adding and expanding to my article, so in the meantime would you mind leaving the formatting and section headings as they are? I'd appreciate it. Thanks much for the review so far! Mebennett49 (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Mebennett49

Hi @Mebennett49: - that's always a dicey request at Wikipedia, because you are in no way assumed to have ownership of an article you edit ;) If someone finds something they consider worth editing, they will do it, and you can't really tell them to leave off (and your teacher ought to be aware of that). That said, I certainly appreciate the care and amount of sources you are applying here. While the subsection division looks a little non-standard and may have someone over to change it at some time, I'm happy to keep my hands off the layout.

However, that conservation status in the taxobox has to go. WP customarily uses a limited number of global or (failing that) national assessment schemes - see here: Wikipedia:Conservation_status - and a single publication's assessment does not warrant an assessment tag, so please leave that one blank. Cheers! -- Elmidae (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Teacher outline is recommendation not rule

I teach this class and want to say I have told the students to respect any good information already there on their bee. To the extent they add new material, I prefer for it to be in the order I gave the students so that a reader can see the same order for different bees. There won't be the same content since the students don't have to do all categories. But uniformity is good. For example, Colony cycle information should always appear in a certain order. Hope this makes sense. My students are eagerly looking forward to the comments of other Wikipedians and the last thing we want is to offend anyone who has put good material up there. Agelaia (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Caracal

Hey, sorry I mistakenly removed your subsequent edits after the unexplained removal of refs from caracal. I was working through the diffs, saw what looked like vandalism, and went to the version just before as a reflex; somehow I didn't see that you had already addressed it by replacing the refs. Anyway, it was unintentional, and looking at my watchlist I don't know how I missed your follow-up edits, but somehow I did. Antepenultimate (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No sweat :)-- Elmidae (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Baillonella toxisperma

Sorry, I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia. Could you explain why you've removed my edit? It is clear that you view it as trivial, but how is the reference to Home Depot (without a citation) more relevant? What could improve my post to make it non-trivial in your view? I included the second "fluff" piece (yes, it is a fluff piece) simply because it contains a photograph of the concert hall that is veneered in moabi. Would developing a section on the commercial uses of Baillonella toxisperma allow for the inclusion of this kind of information? Thank you, Woodwatch (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Woodwatch:, two reasons.

a) Statements in Wikipedia should be supported by references to reliable, by preference secondary sources unrelated to the subject. The two references you provided are neither: the first is a university in-house publication (thus a primary source and not unrelated), the second an advertorial feature (thus not unrelated) that does not support the statement (refs just for image inclusion aren't used). Note that primary refs are fine for sourcing uncontroversial content that needs to be stated for good coverage, such as names on a company's board of directors or whatever, but that assumes the issue itself is notable. However:

b) Even if both sources were fine, adding a random example of a place where this wood is used as paneling is the very definition of trivia - incidental information that may be added in small amounts after there is a substantial article covering the important stuff about a subject, and even then very circumspectly. If you include this kind of thing while the article is still the size of a single paragraph, you create the impression that that factoid is of far greater importance than it actually is. Recall that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not an indiscriminate collection of information. With the current state of the article, including this bit would be about as justified as linking to this [yacht-builder's catalogue] which also features moabi paneling.

Admittedly, b) is more of a judgement call, but I think you will find that a dislike for trivia is very common among regular editors, and the next article checker who comes along is likely to react the same way.

As for the Home Depot ref, that ought to be fixed and can easily be (found it on first google and will plug it in now). But I hope you appreciate the difference in terms of covering this species between a large chain store phasing out a product due to conservation concerns, and Hall X being paneled with it?

Finally, a section on commercial uses would certainly be useful - that article does need some love. I suppose such a section could then nicely accommodate a good example of paneling, if it is otherwise substantial enough.

(Sorry, I don't mean to come over as the big arbiter of all things WP here. If you insist in putting the text in, I'll probably just leave it alone, as it's not worth edit-warring over; but I don't think it'll stand other people's scrutiny either.)

Cheers -- Elmidae (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the extensive clarification. The context you provide for your position is thoroughly convincing.Woodwatch (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake page

Hello, I know you are annoyed at the fact that I was changing the Eastern Diamondback page, so I want to ask before I edit it again. Can I please update the endangered status list to iucn 2.3 instead of 2.1? I will not mark them as an endangered species. Dinosam2010 (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Dinosam2010Dinosam2010 (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosam2010 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Dinosam2010:, it appears the IUCN assessment is already correctly marked as 3.1? I've updated the citation format to the one we prefer now (as the ID link appears to be subject to random changes), but otherwise that's as it should be... -- Elmidae (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Green ibis

It's a bit cheeky to add information without a source and then tag the article as needing references! Perhaps you could supply your own next time? MeegsC (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@MeegsC: - you can cut out the snarking, mate :) If you look at the edit in detail, you will find that I did not add that material but just moved it out of the lede into a standard habitat section. Kudos to you for searching up the refs, but seeing that I spend most of my time cleaning up after shoddy referencing myself, I'm not feeling especially guilty for tagging that one instead of doing it myself.-- Elmidae (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Ha! Sorry about that — I missed the move and just saw the paste. MeegsC (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem :)-- Elmidae (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Your Bot Colony edits

Thank you for your edits, that was my first day editing Wikipedia and I needed help! I had incorporated a PDF excerpt from the Bot Colony novel into the article (it's publicly available on www.botcolony.com) and it disappeared after your edit. It was meant to add detail to this sentence in the article:

The first part of the Bot Colony novel relates how KHT managed to infiltrate Bot Colony.[1]

If the PDF is inserted after this sentence (or placed in the References and linked to ? but I don't know how to do that ), readers could find out how KHT actually infiltrated Agrihan. Any proper way to bring it back? Sensebased (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Sensebased:, I reinserted a link to the excerpt, after the reference to the full novel. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Elmidae!

Happy New Year!

Elmidae,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.