User talk:Tim Ross/Archive 2

Onchidella and the other systellommatophorans

Hi Tim Ross, Four comments: 1. It will be great to have more info on veronicellids, I look forward to that. There are a couple of Veronicellidae articles but they are very minimal. 2. And thanks for your suggestion. I will give the lowest level Onchidella articles an explicit link to the family article for more info. (I do appreciate all helpful suggestions, because I signed up with WP this July, I am still learning my way around.) 3. By the way, what do you personally think about nesting mollusk articles in categories, I mean at what level to create the categories? I see some people have put mollusk species into family categories (which are good because the taxonomy often does not change much at the family level, unlike some of the higher levels!) but other people feel that there are too many mollusk families and therefore that would create too many categories. I anticipate that the gastropod taxonomy will continue to change a great deal over the next 10 years and more. 4. Oh and I have been attempting to use the "Southern Synthesis" for my taxonomy but I that see the gastropod project page suggests a slightly older publication. Any comments? Invertzoo (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, Invertzoo, on the veronicellids. May take me a while to do anything substantial, though.

In terms of your question about editing at the family level or higher, I must admit to being a splitter. Families, I think, are a pretty usable level for many mollusks, and usually work well as the location for detailed information. In some cases, though, either a higher or lower taxonomic level may make a better choice. In other words, my answer is that I don't have an answer.

I fear I must plead ignorant, or at least our-of-date, with respect to the latest thoughts on molluscan systematics. My last real involvement was 40 years ago, and I've been in environmental biology since that time. I have a good deal of faith in Winston Ponder (of Ponder & Lindberg 1997) with whom I once spent some weeks doing fieldwork, and will be happy to follow the insights of that work. No doubt, in a few years, another arrangement will float to the top. Happy editing! Tim Ross·^talk 17:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Barry Baldwin

You added a notability tag to this. I see why, but I have now added a fair bit of detail and bibliography. I thought I could now reasonably take the tag off, so that's what I've done, but please put it back if you disagree! Andrew Dalby 15:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Didn't mean to catch you in the middle of things. Looks great now. (P.S., I would certainly translate Botanicus Regis Primarius as "First Royal Botanist", for what that's worth. :-).) Tim Ross·^talk 15:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

BigGabbrial555

Simply make a report to wikipedia. He has been blocked many times. It'll get rid of him permanently. UnclePaco (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

seailing of cathedral

the reason i took it of is becuase it does not look right on the page ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGabriel555 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Etang Saumatre

No problem. I thank you for nice photos from this, at least for me, exotic part of the world. Looking forward for more photos. - Darwinek 22:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Helicoidea

Hello Tim, thank you for your question. I have added reference for Helicoidea article. I hope that those references are the most recent for systematics because they are still mentioned as most recent ones in Gastropoda article. I have no the book by Bouchet & Rocroi but the downloadable article by Poppe & Tagaro only. --Snek01 (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

i want to appologize

i want to apologize for the removal of the cathedral's interior i am very sorry for taking it off but the reason i don't like the photo is because it doesn't look right under the cathedral in the section of landmarks i believe you should put it in the colonial zone of the Dominican Republic i believe thats were it looks best so i am very sorry and thank you please message me back and i looked at your page i like the pictures you put on like the lake of the Dominican republic tell me were you got them so thanks and good bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGabriel555 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response, BigGabriel555, and your suggestion about the photograph of the cathedral interior. As you have now modified the arrangement, the Colonial Zone has 2 interior photos (no exterior photos) and Santo Domingo has the single exterior photograph of the cathedral, with no interior view. I would prefer for Santo Domingo to have one of each, perhaps with the interior located within the "Colonial District of Santo Domingo" paragraph of "Santo Domingo", but will leave it as it is unless you agree with that rearrangement.

I'm glad you liked the pictures of Lago Enriquillo and of Lago de Oviedo. I took them myself. Lago de Oviedo, in particular, is a remarkable place, but both are interesting. Tim Ross·^talk 15:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosetta Burke

Could you do me a favor please? Could you review what's posted on the AFD page and give me your feedback? Thanks. --Cbdorsett (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a difficult situation, Cbdorsett. As you can see, I have already spent much time minutely reviewing the article and all the supporting documents. It is clearly going to be a "Keep" when the AfD is closed. That is, I think, appropriate. The article as it now stands is informative, and does cover the notability requirement in at least a limited way. The real issue is the article's author, who seems fairly poorly attuned to some of the niceties expected in an Wikipedia editor. I don't know what can be done about that, and perhaps the writer will eventually adopt a less aggressive stance. If I were you, I'd try to forget about it, and move on to something more interesting. I intend to do that, myself. Tim Ross·^talk 11:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. I do plan to walk away from this, even so far as refraining from making some obviously needed cosmetic changes to the article. On the other hand, I shudder at the thought of this particular editor as an admin. It makes me wonder whether I would be doing a disservice to the Wikipedia community not to do something about it. I sure do not want to spend any portion of my time watching this editor, waiting for the moment when she decides she is "ready" to go for adminship. I hesitate to bring an RFC for this because of the effort in dragging out the evidence and because I really don't want to subject myself (and others like you) to more vitriol from her. Anyway, thanks. Have a great day. Cbdorsett (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• I got an apology, which I accepted. As far as I'm concerned, this closes the whole thing. Thanks for your time. Cbdorsett (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

References and headings

== References at section headings ==

I would be very grateful to know if there is any way to add a reference to a section heading (as I have attempted, above, with the usual bad result)? I have often wanted to do this for a reference that is applicable to an entire section, but, failing in my attempts, have had to either tack the reference to the end of the section, hoping that readers will understand the extent of the applicability, or to use it multiple times within the section. Neither of these two alternates is very appealing. Thanks very much for your help! Tim Ross·^talk 23:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

adding a ref to the section title is not a good idea, instead use it at the end of a paragraph where the content of the paragraph is being cited to that source. β^_command 01:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:MaclaySchool-1.JPG

Image categories have the word images in them. As I recall, this image was in three categories one of which was included in another. In that case you do not put the article or image in both categories. I'd suggest that you look at Category:Wikipedia images for good categories. Also you could consider Wikipedia commons which is set up much better to organize images. Images on this wiki do not need to be in a category. They just need to be linked by an article. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

ActiveQuant

Ulrich, here is what I found when I checked out the various sites you offered as support for the notability of ActiveQuant. Tim

ActiveQuant:
http://www.gojobs.com/seeker/jobdetail.asp?jobnum=4725486&jbid=1625
If this source mentions ActiveQuant, it's not on this page.

http://freshmeat.net/projects/activequant/?branch_id=52197&release_id=267351
Index of Unix software, useful to show that ActiveQuant really exists, but doesn't add much, if any, notability.

http://www.softwareheadlines.com/modules/planet/view.article.php/243436
Another announcement, with info taken from above site.

http://ojts.sourceforge.net/
Nothing here, other than a link to the ActiveSource site.

http://www.ohloh.net/projects/8064/enlistments
In this case, http://www.ohloh.net/projects/8064?p=activeQuant would have been a more useful ref, although it really consists only of a two sentence announcement.

http://warrenng.blogspot.com/2007_08_01_archive.html
Another two sentence announcement.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=85659
A simple listing which includes a brief review of CCAPI2.

http://www.linuxlinks.com/Java/Financial/
Another brief announcement about ActiveQuant.

http://www.nabble.com/ccapi2-and-activeQuant-f27807.html
As it says, "This forum is an archive for the mailing list: ccapi@activestocks.de". Interesting and informative, but not independent.

http://del.icio.us/search/?fr=del_icio_us&p=activequant&type=all
http://del.icio.us/search/?fr=del_icio_us&p=ccapi2&type=all
http://del.icio.us/search/?fr=del_icio_us&p=ccapi&type=all
These three are all "del.icio.us" search hit lists. Not useful as support.

CCAPI2:
http://www.x-trader.net/cms/articulos/software-y-tecnologia/jsystemtrader_4.html
A simple listing of CCAPI2. Nothing else there.

http://archive.fosdem.org/2007/schedule/events/lt_ccapi2
An announcement for a 15 minute talk about CCAPI2.

http://www.opentick.com/index.php?app=content&event=platforms
Another relatively brief listing of CCAPI2.

http://www.linux-beginnerforum.de/glossary/index.php
Just a two sentence listing of CCAPI.

I'm sorry, but none of this really does the job of showing notability in the sense the word is used by Wikipedia. What it does show is that ActiveQuant is a recognized name (as is CCAPI). This is not the same thing. I can look up my real name with Google and find a few pages of hits, some including information about what I have done in my life, but that does not make me notable, either. What is needed are lengthier, more detailed reviews, ones with considerable substance, from widely recognized independent providers. Short comments from relatively obscure websites, especially if they are merely listings, are unlikely to serve your purpose. If a lot of people use the software, such sources will certainly develop. Tim Ross·^talk 13:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Help request to repair deleted article

Boy do I feel dumb! An AfD has been ongoing for a few days: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xarchiver. I reviewed the article, found it to be modestly useful, but virtually lacking any show of notability, and the article was deleted. I think the topic is of enough value, though, as to be willing to work on a better version, hopefully with the aid of the original author. My problem? Now I don't know how to see the original article or to find the article's author! Help would really be appreciated. Tim Ross·^talk 14:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The Google cache is still visible: [1] --Habashia (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You can also request temporary undeletion at WP:DRV - Revolving Bugbear 18:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I now have it. Tim Ross·^talk 11:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Athoracophoridae

Thanks so much for your input Tim! You saved me a lot of work. I took the liberty of adding your ref to the ref list, hope that is OK with you. Invertzoo (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Mesogastropoda stubs

Just read your reply on this topic. OK, thanks Tim, that's a good idea to wait until the new Ponder and Lindberg taxonomic synthesis comes out. By the way, we already have a Sorbeoconcha stub category, which should include the "Mesogastropoda" if we get to the point at which we want to relabel them. Unfortunately there are about 800 of them. By the way, all the non-marine snails that are in that stub category are not pulmonates, they are land snails and freshwater snails that have opercula. They are what used to be called "prosobranchs". In any case it would be nice to be able to eliminate that particular stub template page, but for the time being I have put a note on it asking people not to use it.Invertzoo (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Xarchiver

Since this is only the previous article with some sources and the article was deleted at AFD over notabiluty concerns, you need to take this to DRV to authorise the recreation. The article as it stands is liable for speedy deletion under catagory G4. I have taken the article to DRV for you but I strongly recommend that you wander by and make your own comments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)