User talk:Elmidae/Archive 2

Thanks for your revision of nankeen night-heron

Thanks for your revision [1]. I was unaware of the Wikipedia policy you referred to, so I've learned something. I've also discovered the Highly-capitalised Species-form is a birder thing that nobody else does. See for example [2]. Paul Foxworthy (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Poecilotheria

Hi. Appreciate your works on spider pages. However, I noticed that you have redirect the page Poecilotheria vittata in to Poecilotheria striata. I think this is according to IUCN Red List, where it denotes as a synonym. But in IUCN also, there is no any clue, with what explanation, doe it includes as a synonym. P. vittata is found in Sri Lanka and P. striata in India. In Sri Lankan zoological guides and books, P. vittata is described as a separate species by many experts of arachnids. In other online literature besides IUCN, there is no any further explanation about its synonym characters. So, I think two species are distinct. Therefore, if you can remove redirect of P. vittata. Unless, I will make another page with its common name. Thanks. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest we put that up for comment at Talk:Poecilotheria_striata, as I can't say I have the overview in these matters. Copied there.-- Elmidae (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Cipangopaludina cathayensis

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations to your the first DYK hook! Thank you for cooperation and looking for further cooperation in the future. --Snek01 (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Mistletoebird

I am doing Ornithology through Charles Sturt University and this is an exercise we have been given. Could you explain what your issue is. I would appreciate if you did not remove my work. I will be working on it for a few weeks Regards John Sheens John sheens (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

SS Nezhin

What a fitting description at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Well meaning, but I don't know where to start ..... It also very warm – that is, until the word "nuke". How about Russian verb "помочь" instead? — Sebastian 23:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Your help desk question

You have responses.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Rudyard Kipling

You asked (why double-barrel & pipe to duplicate what's already there?) Because to my British reading "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" is a very ugly construction. It is also long winded and the hiding of the words "of the United Kingdom" makes reading the article a lot more easy. Admittedly that is my POV but as it is a stylistic POV and not a factual one, it is permissible. Dabbler (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

<shrug> Go ahead then, it hardly seems worth quibbling much over :)-- Elmidae (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yiddish from Turkey

Apart from the complete implausibility of the statement above, and the violation of WP:BRD, please note that 1. I did read the sources (at least the website article and the abstract of the "Genome Biology and Evolution" article), and if you would have represented what it says there in a better way, I might not have revert. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is stuffed with old DNA primary sources, many of which are superseded but are retained because they consolidate editors' confirmation bias, which is, by the way, very strong in this field. Saying you read that scientific paper and judged it as implausible has zero weight in Wikipedia, where it is not in editors' (particularly when they are not familiar with highly specialized fields of research) remit to block academic sources that have an appropriate peer-reviewed publication venue. Elmidae's synthesis of the result is, furthermore, supported by the paper and constitutes a minimal statement of that paper's conclusions. It is even, arguably, over-concise since it ignores (for reasons of space, given WP:Undue concerns) Wexler's linguistic data, which form a key part of that argument. Even to someone like yourself, Debresser, the mystery of that 'Ashkenaz' ethnonym, with its toponymic resonances, should have stirred a little curiosity.Nishidani (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it does. If he would have said something like "pre-Germanic origins of Yiddish", or "Turkish origins overlayed with later Germanic" or something like that, I would not have removed it. But saying simply that Yiddish comes from Turkey, that is unacceptable. But let's keep the discussion on the talkpage, shall we? Debresser (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

In that case, the proper thing to do would have been not to erase the edit, but to tweak it. However, your second suggestion indicates you haven't understood Wexler's work and specifically his input in that paper, since it doesn't argue for 'Turkish origins' (that would be an equivocation, since 'Turkish' denotes geography and language, and the thesis does not argue for the latter, the Turkish components, as opposed to the Iranian elements, being considered scarce. I'll return to the talkpage, of course, but you should have made the comment there, not on this editor's page.Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani. I just love it when you start making off the point comments on my edits on other editors' talkpages. My words did not mention Wexler, nor did they have him in mind. They are solely based on the article in question. Debresser (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Take a course in the syllogism, or in logic. It was much appreciated, according to one view, by the rabbinical school associated with the Jerusalem Talmud, not so by those of the Bavli. The article in question was co-authored by Wexler, and commenting on it, and the Yiddish aspect, involves automatically Wexler, since he was responsible for that part of the paper. Sheesh! Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Cambridge articles

Hello, I heard you can handle requests for pdf-s from Cambridge Journals, as you have free access to it. Could you please provide me the following PDF-s? [3] [4] [5] I need them to improve our vowel/consonant pages, and also Russian phonology and Standard German phonology.

If you need my e-mail, my temporary address is camb-wp-tempmail@10g.pl. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mr KEBAB - I'll check through the University network tomorrow morning; I believe I do have access to that source, but couldn't swear to it. Tell you in 10 hours :) - Elmidae (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, sent!--Elmidae (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep, everything works. Thanks! Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of diagnostic information from Clinus acuminatus

Hi Elmidae, I see that you have deleted the diagnostic information from the article on Clinus acuminatus. Can you explain why this is not considered encyclopaedic information? I have often looked for diagnostic infrmation and it can be difficult to find. When I take the trouble to find it and provide it, it is summarily deleted without explanation. I assume you can direct me to the consensual policy that justifies your action. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Pbsouthwood The reason is simply that this is an excess of detail for an encyclopedia entry. Have a look around a random sample of fish articles above stub level to get an idea of the level of detail that is generally considered suitable; they do not contain the enumeration of every spine, papilla and sub-measurement. We are supposed to summarize and provide an overview, not create the ultimate repository for every related fact. For these details, the reader is expected to turn to the provided sources. - Having said that, my issue was more with the abbreviated list style you used than with the material itself, and I certainly won't edit-war over it; better too much info than a half-article... Please take the time, in any case, to present the stuff in encyclopedic prose and not as bullet-points.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The provided sources are not all easily accessible. Nevertheless I will consult with the WikiProject on Fishes for recommendations on content and presentation. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

you revert on Alligator Snapping Turtle

wondering why you reverted my revert. I undid a deletion that was done without justification I explained why and pointed to the Wikipedia article that would explain it ie Rafetus. You revert has basically reinstated information that is not only incorrect, but can be shown to be so on other Wikipedia pages. Faendalimas ^talk 18:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Faendalimas: that was less a revert of your reinstatement than a removal of that statement in the first place, for being unsourced :) (if you see what I mean) If the Hoan Kiem turtle is indeed heavier, than there should be a reference for that statement here, or (this being the lede) if not here than in the main body - but there isn't. So I'd say the original removal of the statement was correct, but for reason of missing source rather than the Hoan Kiem turtle becoming extinct. Feel free to put it back in, but then I suggest you port over a suitable source from Hoan Kiem turtle or Rafetus? Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, I was not thrilled the statement was there, however the reason for removing by the other user was not correct and I wanted to address that. The Hoan Kiem turtle is a famous individual of Rafetus. cheers Faendalimas ^talk 19:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Precious

watchful guardian

Thank you for your amazing vigilance to keep articles (as is evident from your list of contributions), especially related to mammals, free from vandalism and regularly cleaning them up, and your polite and collaborative attitude. Your minor edits here and there amount to a huge appreciation – yes, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1391 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Further reading

Please notice that general citations are entirely acceptable (see WP:GENREF) and they do not belong in "Further reading" (WP:FURTHER, quote: "not intended as a repository for general references that were used to create the article content"). In other words, this is incorrect, this would have been acceptable, although I've now moved it to the text. Regards, 62.107.218.102 (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I assume you will agree that inline refs are preferable in any case, so thanks for that :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for correcting my edit :-) Gskota (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

No improvement...

...here? and who says it? you?. To qualify a picture as good there is a process established in Wikimedia Commons for years and, it concluded that the 2 pictures I actually place there were of higher quality. I think that your opinion is not above the community's. The pictures you stick to are of clearly lower quality (not sharp, small, bad lighting, redundant, ...). Again here, here (overexposed? c'mon!) and here you have reverted HQ images with professional equipment with standard-low quality pictures. I would like to ask you to reconsider those reverts. Best, --Poco² 13:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Poco a poco - General comment: any process for assessing image quality at Commons has nothing to do with what images are chosen for articles; that depends on the editors at the specific Wikipedia only. So let's leave that out of the reckoning. Also, what equipment you used is completely beside the point. I see that other editors have already pointed out to you that an HDR image is not necessarily better than a bog-standard photo if it is non-representative, has an unsuitable angle, or otherwise doesn't fit in with the article. So let's leave that out of the reckoning too. Third, you seem to be strewing pictures of your own creation across the project pretty indiscriminately, so I'm taking that into consideration as well.

Specifically: [6] yep, judgement call. I think the old picture is better, but I'm not wedded to it.

[7] Yes, your image appears to have worse contrast and does look overexposed. The old one seems preferable.

These two I admit aren't too clear-cut; if you really want, please go ahead and revert. Issues with the other two are clear-cut, however:

[8] Your image duplicates the one already in the text. There is no reason for that at all; both previous images are fine, and show different aspects, which is clearly preferable. How about switching the old box photo into the text and your new one into the box, if you want the wide format there?

[9] Your image is taken in winter, which makes it hard to even figure out where the lake is, and the castle is completely invisible in the snow! That is a really pointless image, and the old one is far more illustrative. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Fine to know that you care nothing about the efforts in Commons to grant the QI stamp to those pictures that deserve it. How can you affirm that quality is irrelevant? Ok, let's flood Commons with cheap cell phone images that are "illustrative". Many people just don't look at the thumbnail and enjoy pictures at full size.

If you don't care about image quality why do you answer with judgements about it? Does Commons have something to say about that or it doesn't? It is frustrating for me to get criticisms from people saying that my images are great (a proof from this month) but useless for the movement as they are not visible in any articles. So, I invest time to place them everywhere instead to doing what I like (taking pictures) but make hardly progress as I've to dedicate my time to this kind of discussions. Maybe I just should stop uploading. --Poco² 15:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have conveniently skipped over the telling criterion - the image has to be suitable in the context of the article. Kudos for wanting to improve picture quality on Wikipedia, but this is not your gallery but an encyclopedia. If you seriously disagree with the motivations in the Laguna Blanca and Hohenschwangau cases, then you are working on the wrong angle, and "placing your images everywhere" under that motivation is indeed a problem since it impedes article quality. - I would however suggest you not blow this all out of proportion, and merely apply a bit of discretion. I looked over plenty of your additions and thought most were great photos. Just don't ram them in in preference of "image quality" over "article quality".-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Cameroon scaly-tail (edits)

You've done a nice job with reorganization and subheadings. I have only a few comments.

First, the opening paragraph states "rarely been observed in the wild" which I think is misleading and contradicts the first sentences under Distribution/Habitat and Ecology. There are no known literature accounts that document Zenkerella alive in the wild (or captivity). There may be an obscure reference somewhere but authors of references 2-5 and anomalure-specialist peer reviewers (n=4) of ref 5 are unaware of them. Also, local peoples probably observe Zenkerella in the wild on occassion and those observations just don't make it to the literature. Also, certainly it is has been observed dead in traps "in the wild", but this is splitting hairs. Since this issue is covered in the Distribution/Habitat and Ecology sections, perhaps that sentence in the opening paragraph should just be changed to "Its taxonomic clasification is subject to ongoing revision." Another option is to reword the sentence to be more accurate. I appreciate your input and hope you'll make this edit.

Second, two of the figures (from Heritage et al.) were published in the journal PeerJ under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). Under that license we are "free to: Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format; Adapt - remix, transform and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercialy." (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/) Furthermore, I'm the first author and corresponding author of that paper, I took the photos in figure 1 and a few in figure 3, and created these figures. I placed these images in wikicommons and granted public domain access. I will update the wiki commons information to reflect this. I think it greatly benefits the wiki page to include those images as they include the only known photographs of whole body specimens of Zenkerella and show some of the anatomy discussed on the wiki page (ashy-grey fur, bushy black tail, scales on tail, ankle tufts, number of digits). I would argue that at least these two figures are returned to the page. I will further research the copyrights of the modified figures from Perez and Marivaux.

Thanks again for the editing and nice reorganization. Cheers, Steven — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritage S (talk • contribs) 13:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Heritage S, I'm glad that those figures are actually correctly licensed! :) In the majority of cases of this type of image being uploaded, the "own work" is not actually the case and people just picked the most accommodating option from the menu... Thanks for making use of the common licensing option on PeerJ, and making these images available to Wikipedia. I believe the Perez and Marivaux images may require some kind of express statement from the first authors.

Please feel free to re-insert the images, and possibly link to this conversation in the edit summary for the benefit of other editors who may happen upon the article. Re the lede sentence about "rarely observed in the wild", that was just my attempt at summarizing some content from the article for the first paragraph. By all means adapt to something more suitable; you are the one with the literature overview. Best of luck! -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again Elmidae! This is my first wiki contribution and it was a learning process (but not difficult) to get all the refs, and links and images incorporated. I think incoporating the tree figure in the phylogeny section and the specimen photos in the morphology section is the best way to do it - I just haven't yet learned how to do that. The gallery was an example on a wiki page that I just copied. I'm not sure I want to mess around with the nice work you've done. I would appreciate it if you gave this a shot, but only if you have time. If you want to caption them differently, or ref them, or link them to a talk page about creative commons, that's fine. Included below are the wiki commons file names of those images. Also, I can easily modify that sentence in the opening paragraph. Cheers, Steven

File:Zenkerella photographs.jpg|alt1=Figure 1 from Heritage, et al. (2016).|Figure 1 from Heritage, et al. (2016). Photographs of Zenkerella insignis DPC 91001 male.

File:Zenkerella phylogney.jpg|alt4=Figure 3 from Heritage, et al. (2016).|Figure 3 from Heritage, et al. (2016). Timescale and phylogenetic relationships of extant and extinct anomaluromorph rodents.

Sure, I'll be happy to see to it - but only tomorrow, sorry (got to bustle off now). See you around! -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You've done a great job straightening out the page. Thanks again for all your efforts! -Steven — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritage S (talk • contribs) 18:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

fire ecology

I reverted as the edits were done in the interest of promoting neutrality. The sections I changed were biased. I would be happy to work with you to adjust particular sections you'd like to see changed. Overall, I feel the article was improved by my edits. Let's work together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekELee (talk • contribs) 15:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Northern white rhinoceros

I did see the reminder, and I edited because on the IUCN page it says "Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct in the Wild)" in the Assessment Information. If you were writing "bold reminder" in all caps to be rude, you didn't have to be. --69.22.64.188 (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Diplocaulobium

Molecular phylogenetics and character evolution of morphologically diverse groups, Dendrobium section Dendrobium and allies https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=Yl3wAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=diplocaulobium+dendrobium&source=bl&ots=KkvYoJqqR0&sig=r_rLjgzatbuYPLDutjbUzLZm_cU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizpY6NqY_PAhUL7mMKHZfdBUAQ6AEIWTAL#v=onepage&q=diplocaulobium%20dendrobium&f=false This name is a synonym accepted Name: Dendrobium Sw., Nova Acta Regiae Soc. Sci. Upsal. 6: 82 (1799), nom. cons. if you don't know anything about systematics read up or ask assistance. Raabbustamante (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Get that stick out of your bum and see your talk page.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Vicentei edit

Is personal observation an acceptable citation? I breed the species and it is widely known within dendrobatid circles (both captive culture and scientific) that no Oophaga sp. transports tads to streams. Since they are all egg feeders they transport to bromeliads or other arboreal vegetation, in streams the tads would get washed away. The species is also highly arboreal and almost never descends from the canopy. Palaeograss (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Palaeograss (do you have one account with "a" and one without? :) - personal observation is not sufficient, I'm afraid. All information on Wikipedia has to be verifiable, i.e. the reader must theoretically be able to look up the cited source and check that we are reporting the information correctly. That is not possible with accounts from personal observation. One occasional and regrettable consequence is that articles are obliged to report what is published, not what is necessarily true. I don't doubt that you are right - the info in the IUCN article is after all more than a decade old - but unless there is a publication of some sort to refer to, it can't go into the article.

Can you find some paper, article or book that deals with spawning in the genus, and backs up these statements? Note, the source doesn't have to be online - reference to plain old paper books is fine. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thx for the response. I forgot my password and there wasnt an email associated with my old account :( This may suffice

http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/bitstream/handle/2246/5803/B299.pdf;jsessionid=2912D9A39FE210E9FBF2DECAC70305B9?sequence=1

pages 172-178 explain the synapomorphy of oophagy and phytotelm breeding in the genus oophaga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palaeograss (talk • contribs) 21:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Palaeograss, that should do. It's a little convoluted, but I read it as a statement that all Dendrobatinae practice phytothelm breeding, and that the taxa that have re-evolved use of ground water do not include Oophaga. I'll add the source to the article. If you want to fix up other frog articles along these lines, please do.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not the most direct approach but that's exactly how I interpeted it as well. Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palaeograss (talk • contribs) 15:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

African Wild dogs biting anus of prey

Hi Elmidae. You recently reverted my change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_wild_dog&oldid=prev&diff=747254013

Could you please explain how an anus can be bitten by a canine jaw? It doesn't protrude and is a small target. Whereas the buttocks have a curvature that is perfect for biting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewWorld101 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you ever seen what the anus looks like on e.g. an African buffalo, or any horse relative (e.g. zebra)? It is quite an easy target for a predator with a no-nonsense approach to inflicting wounds. This kind of bite attack is a speciality of canids, who generally have to harry and exhaust their prey into submission, and who thus go for soft parts while running alongside - those tend to be the lips, throat, belly, and anus. Comparatively long muzzles also help. Attacking the actual buttocks is a big cat thing, because they can clamp down with their claws and pull the animal down with a good hold. Otherwise the buttocks are quite a bad target for attacks (among the least vulnerable body parts, in fact).-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I hope you're happy, making me look at pictures of animal anuses. Yes, it seems you're right. The horse anus protrudes a little, and the size of it fits nicely in an African dog's jaw. Also, the buttocks are far too large for the dog's mouth. Best regards. NewWorld101 (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It's only fair, I did some ill-advised googling as well |p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Wood frog

Hi Elmidae. You immediately deleted my addition to the article on the Wood Frog where I said that I had seen one in Cornwall, SE England, UK. Why are you so sure that I did not see one? For a photo with two views, search 'Wood frog' in Wikipedia Commons and look at the photo entitled Cornwall_wood_frog_two_views . If you agree it is a wood frog, please undelete my edit. GPetroc (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you aware that Wikipedia is expected to contain only information that can be traced to reliable, published references? This precludes anything that comes from first-hand observation; someone else must have reported and published it first before an editor can include. In short, we do not allow original research. Unless you can source your addition to an independent, reliable published source, it can not go into the article - sorry. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit of Indian gray mongoose

You recently removed the one sentence and the reference to ladywildlife from Indian gray mongoose. Unfortunately the entire paragraph, not just the sentence, is a cut and paste from ladywildlife (barring the first sentence, and a later alteration). A paragraph in Description is also a cut and paste from ladywildlife. Interestingly the ladywildlife website claims to be quite militant about people taking the information from the site, despite the cut and paste being done 5 years ago by someone from Nepal (not from website). Anyway I'm currently trying to gather a few sources together to try and amend or replace the offending paragraphs. Just thought I'd let you know. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jameel the Saluki - I suppose I should have looked a little deeper there :| I appreciate your searching for better sources! -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Query re categories

Currently I am having a discussion re categories of species by geography, and despite the editor I am having a discussion with having spent a great deal of time on articles sorting out categories the way he likes them, I am not convinced that he has a good understanding of the purpose of them or of the subject matter with which he is dealing. Is there anyone or any area that I can get a bit of more authoritative advice from? or is this a case of me having to just deal with the issues on an article by article basis? I would have thought that this was an issue that would have been raised a long time ago. Thanks for any help that you could provide.Jameel the Saluki (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Replied on Cuiros22's talk page! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)