User talk:Fxer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Lemon 2 X-planes layout 3 "Current USAF" table 4 wolf spider 5 spiders 6 hobo spider image 7 binomial designations 8 taxobox 9 age of spider families 10 Spam? 11 Please check... 12 Aircraft specifications survey 13 Please contribute to the collaboration! 14 TiVo 15 Image:Herman Dale Ashworth mugshot.jpg 16 Aircraft specs policy 17 Article Improvement Drive 18 You helped choose {{subst:IDRIVEtopic article}} as this week's WP:AID winner 19 Eduardo de Valfierno 20 Jesus Article Vote 21 the post-spork era of monkeys 22 Marklar 23 Heidi Fleiss 24 Stone sphere 25 Visit My Page 26 Infobox 27 In reference to Medicine in Ancient Greece 28 About Marklar 29 Banco Central burglary at Fortaleza 30 New Medicine COTW 31 German-style board game 32 Raoul "El Cid" Hernandez 33 Re: Jerry Taylor article 34 Image tagging for Image:Rhapsody desktop.png 35 Image:Tyler Hamilton head.jpg 36 Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

[edit] Lemon

Hi just wondered if you can get that meyer lemon pic you talked about, it would be much appreciated.--Bjwebb (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] X-planes layout

Hi Fxer - looks like you're taking an interest in rounding out our X-planes coverage! Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content for the current guidelines for aircraft articles - the old grey navigation box and blue data table belong to an earlier era, but we're still weeding them out of the system... Keep up the good work :) --Rlandmann 10:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There were a few reasons for the change away from the boxes, but ease of editing was a major one, as well as (as you say) to create an appearance closer to print publications like Jane's. There were/are also people who strongly prefer the look that you call bland (not me - but I don't particularly care either way). The discussions are archived externally at http://aeronaut.ca/wikiforum/ (note that this forum is now closed and current Project discussions now go on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft).

It is possible to set up the data in such a way that it would be styled externally using a parametrised template (see Help:Template) However, for aircraft articles, this results in a block of code in the article even more formidable than the old table code - not very inviting to most people who might edit the page. Cheers --Rlandmann 21:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. The X-1 and X-18 were almost textbook - just a few nits if I'm going to be absolutely pedantic here:

• U.S. and British aircraft have imperial units first, metric bracketed - in both the article text and the data section.
• Note that the names for the rows in the related content section are different from what they were in the grey box.
• Wiki years to link to their "year in aviation" article - [[1964 in aviation|1964]], not just [[1964]]
• Wiki engines directly - Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6
• Be aware of the naming conventions for aircraft. For U.S. military aircraft, these go designation-name (eg F-15 Eagle), or, when there's either no official name, or more than one widely-used name, manufacturer-designation (eg Lockheed U-2)
• Avoid modifying the specs section unless it's absolutely necessary. Don't remove rows unless they are not applicable or nonsensical for this particular aircraft. If qualification of the data is necessary, this should happen in the article text.

Not applicable to your X-1 or X-18 edits, but to yesterday's:

• Be careful with categories - rockets and missiles aren't categorised in with aircraft (unless they're winged). They go under Category:Rockets and missiles or one of its subcategories instead.

Hope I haven't scared you off yet! :) --Rlandmann 22:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Current USAF" table

Hi - those tables haven't been in use for nearly a year now, and were probably not a great idea in the first place (on account of its size - a list is a much better way of managing a large number of links like this table contains). Feel free to remove it whenever you encounter it. You could replace it with a link to List of current USAF aircraft in the "See also:" section instead. Cheers --Rlandmann 00:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] wolf spider

I made a few modifications, but someone else got to it before me to make additional mods. - UtherSRG 18:21, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] spiders

Hi,

Thanks for helping with the spider articles. I have just finished doing categories for spiders for which there are images on Wikipedia Commons and intend to do the same thing here. That involves making the genus name the category for pictures, the article on, e.g., hobo spiders, gets the category of the genus, then there is to be a category for the Family, then for the Sub-order, and so on up the line. I decided to do things this way because there is a clear order and so that it is unnecessary to put in a category for each superior category on the articles for specific spiders. Doing things this way also means that the pictures are easily found. Categorizing all spider pictures as "spider" would mean that all pictures would show up in a hodge-podge when you clicked on that category. Also, doing things this way may make it easier to create a "spider finder" article. P0M 20:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking about how to make things easier for the general user. Probably a series of "image articles" that are essentially galleries will be the best way. I'm following the taxonomy on the Spider article, so it's fairly easy to see where everything falls in place. Occasionally I have images that are identified as to genus but not to species, and that makes things somewhat irregular, but in an article it should be possible to make everything easy to find.

Since only links are involved (and Wikipedia is not paper) it should be possible to have one finder page in which spiders are arranged by their prevailing color, another page in which spiders are shown as they are related to the kinds of webs they make, or, if they don't make webs then on how they hunt, etc. Each finder probably would only use 5-10 K.

Anyway, if things don't work well one way we can do them another way. For one thing, we could have a parallel set of categories by English names. That's going to be a bit messy since several species will get linked under, e.g., Tarantulas.

I got into this because the stuff on Wikipedia Commons was virtually impossible to find. There are huge numbers of image files and I can't imagine going through them image by image just to find the few spider images that may be in there. So I'll look in the obvious places and occasionally find a new image here or there that I can drop in at an appropriate place. If I do this by genus and species names then it is unlikely that I will call the same spider by two different English names. P0M 22:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

See Spider_Gallery -- I've got to clean this up and move some spiders to their correct place, etc. P0M 23:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hobo spider image

Hi,

I was just checking category tags and noticed that your Image:Male-hobo.gif is going to be axed because whoever is doing the checking says it has a "non-commercial use only" license. It would be too bad to lose that image unless one of us has a hobo under the couch in the living room. ;-) P0M 06:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote the article to include mention of all five species. P0M 17:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] binomial designations

Hi, Yeah, I was noticing that problem myself. I guess the way to do categories on the species level is to change, e.g., fera to P. fera. Fortunately it's not hard to change. (What is a big problem for me is when I get a photo i.d. wrong.) P0M 17:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

It's too bad there is no way to say Category:Spider_nigriventer|nigriventer. Maybe the way is to recapitulate several levels as initials: A(for Araneae)A(for Araneomorphae)L(for Latrodectus)mactans -->AAL_mactans

Another question: Isn't there any way to indicate Suborders in the taxonomy? P0M 19:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] taxobox

We had quite a discussion on what to put in the taxonomy box of Spiders. I had started to try to get it into some reasonable shape. (It is a mess if you are not already an expert because so much is being changed all the time and if you get something 5 years old you may fix your taxonomy in an out-of-date form.) Then Dr. Richman came along. He is an expert in the field, and a really nice person, too. The reason I asked about Suborders is that the tarantulas and a few other kinds of spiders belong in one Suborder, and the web weavers, jumping spiders, etc. belong in another one. If you are working the categories back the way I am then there will be a disconnect between what I am doing and what is on the box. To put "Suborder Araneomorphae" in a taxoblock only takes one line, and that would make the whole structure parallel what is in the Spider article.

The whole category thing seems to be in flux. I have seen discussions on the Wikipedia Commons that indicate that there are two or more ideas on how to go about setting them up, bottom to top (which is what I have ended up doing) and top to bottom. The good thing about the way I am doing it is that there is a standard that everybody can follow, the sequence that is available in the Spiders article.

There are further groupings between the level of Families and the level of Suborder. If some people tried to include these in a category scheme we could get something really discordant going. For the sake of the general reader I think it is better to make things as consistent and logical as we can.

There is also the problem of scientific nomenclature vs. common names. We have to remember that English speakers all over the world will use this encyclopedia, so it is a good idea to avoid systems that depend on terms like "bananna spider" which mean vastly different things to different people. Even by using "Brazillian Wandering Spider" as an article title we unintentionally smudged the difference between genus and species. Fortunately, as long as the pictures get names that aren't too misleading it isn't hard to change things as we get more experience. P0M 20:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the reason that Richman didn't follow my original attempts to subdivide the Suborder Araneomorphae at the mid level and went right to the Family level was that the general user wouldn't have any idea of the significance of some level of organization that lumps jumping spiders and crab spiders together. On the other hand, while people may be capable of identifying jumping spiders on sight, very few people would have any idea of which genus a given spider might fit into.

People do know about Tarantulas, and they all are kind of built on the same chassis, and they really are substantially different from Huntsman spiders -- even though there are 10 inch Huntsman spiders in Laos. On the other hand, they are similar to the Sphodros genus, and somebody might see one of them and see that they look something like miniature tarantulas. So, to me, it makes more sense to have a taxonomy box that makes it clear that the two of them (and a few others that people might notice) belong together. It wouldn't work to have Atypical tarantuls, Araneidae (orb weavers, Ctenizidae (trapdoor spiders), Theridiidae (tangle web spiders), Theraphosidae (tarantulas), etc., all jumbled together in the same list.

A listing might say: Animalia Arthropoda Arachnida Araneae

• Araneomorphae (So, despite any common names that may be involved, these are not "tarantulas")
  • Ctenidae (In this case, the Family is a little confusing because it is "Wandering" but not venomous)
    • Phononeutria (Most useful, because it turns out the species all bite and all look alike.)
      • Fera (As the Buddha said, who cares what brand of bullet you were shot with?)

People think that genus and species are what they need to know. They may actually get a better overview from the Family identity as it frequently corresponds to common names like "Jumping Spiders". and the next higher category is very helpful because otherwise people might assume that tarantulas were no more different from jumping spiders than are orb weaving spiders.P0M 21:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, it wouldn't be a parallel development to list the Genera of the Theraphosidae. Tarantula genera probably don't even need to be listed under Tarantula unless we start getting articles on different genera of them, but doing so would be useful. We have a couple of pictures of tarantulas. One was my own tarantula, but somebody else insisted that the pet store and I both had the wrong species identification. I asked the V.P. of the American Tarantula Society and he said he could tell me, but the best way would be to dissect it... The point is that the species differences among Tarantulas are not easy to make and probably not very useful to individuals -- just as it doesn't really matter much what species of Latrodectus bit you. P0M 22:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] age of spider families

Hi,

I'm not sure whether this is what I saw a minute ago (I was looking for something else), but it may give you some ideas on how the age of different species of flora and fauna are assessed. www.americanarachnology.org/ JoA_free/JoA_v8_n3/JoA_v8_p251.pdf It does pertain to the Kimura-gumo. P0M 20:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spam?

Hello Fxer,

I am admittedly new to wikipedia & perhaps clueless as well, but I am curious as to how/why you categorized my link additions to "Mark Levinson" (http://www.musicmaker.org/about.html, circa May 27, 2005) & to "Blues" (http://www.musicmaker.org/index.html, same date) as spam.

If you search the 1st URL above for 'Levinson', you will see it is pertinent (albeit oriented toward 'the person' & not 'the company').

As for the "Blues" topic, I can't imagine why you wouldn't want to show that link.

I added both links because I thought others coming to these topics would find the links useful &/or interesting. Please enlighten me as to why you disagree.

-Jerry S.

• Hey, thanks for your interest in Wikipedia, those links were removed because they didn't fit with Wikipedia's external links policy. Specifically linking to websites for advertising purposes. The idea of links is that they contain some information that will at some point be added to the Wikipedia article the link appears in, then that link will only remain as a reference. If there is information on those pages that is of use to an encyclopedia, it should be incorporated into the article text, not just linked to. Hope that answers your question! --Fxer July 5, 2005 18:45 (UTC)

[edit] Please check...

The Team Time Trial discussion at Talk:Tour de France. Cheers - I - amazingly - am not playing Tardis Tennis at the moment. 18:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft specifications survey

Hi again Fxer! You may be interested in a survey currently underway to help develop a revised version of our standard specifications section. --Rlandmann 00:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please contribute to the collaboration!

Girl is the collaboration of the week! Please come grow this article... Mamawrites 03:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TiVo

Hello - I left a message for you on the TiVo talk page. Cheers. --204.176.49.25 00:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Herman Dale Ashworth mugshot.jpg

I don't think the tag for this image is correct, as it probably won't be a work of the United States Federal Government, instead it will be a work of the Ohio state government. Evil Monkey∴Hello 20:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft specs policy

Several weeks ago, you voted in the WikiProject Aircraft Specifications Survey. One of the results of the survey was that the specifications for the various aircraft articles will now be displayed using a template. Ericg and I have just finished developing that template; a lengthier bulletin can be found on the WT:Air talkpage. Naturally, we will need to begin a drive to update the aircraft articles. However, several topics in the survey did reach establish consensus, and they need to be resolved before we implement the template. It is crticial that we make some conclusion, so that updating of the specs can resume as soon as possible. You can take part in the discussions here. Thanks, Ingoolemo ^talk 06:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article Improvement Drive

[edit] You helped choose {{subst:IDRIVEtopic article}} as this week's WP:AID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week {{subst:IDRIVEtopic article}} was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

Wackymacs 07:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eduardo de Valfierno

This article, Eduardo de Valfierno needs references. Thanks--FloNight 03:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Article Vote

Hey there. I noticed that you added a vote to the archived vote table. Please remove that vote (the voting there has ended) and place your vote in the main table on the main page. Thank you. (If you haven't gotten around to removing your vote after a while, I will have to remove it manually. Thanks!) --Avery W. Krouse 05:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the post-spork era of monkeys

Great edit summary! Thanks for the laugh, FreplySpang (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marklar

The article Fictional races in South Park now contains the same information.

[edit] Heidi Fleiss

If you want to add her to the list at Pimp, you probably want to change the first sentence of the article to reflect that pimps don't have to be male. Joyous | Talk 16:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Good call, changed it but the whole article could use some work --Fxer 17:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stone sphere

Will do. I uploaded it in the middle of my intensive introductory biology lecture; combining that class with editing Wikipedia is a usually Bad Thing™. I know it's contradictory but I felt like I didn't have time to put in a full description.

You should also check out my Image:Sloth47.JPG from the same trip. It's not that great technically—horrible, horrible backlighting and problems with the automatic focus—but it's still pretty good.

—WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 19:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This good: Image:Stone sphere.jpg? —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 19:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the featured pic nomination. It had just been sitting in my iPhoto library all this time. I've always thought it was a great picture but I had no idea what the things were called. Finally I decided to just do an google search for stone ball costa rica, which pointed me towards the wikipedia article, which happened to be pictureless.—WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 04:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Visit My Page

Could you visit my page? [[1]] Cigammagicwizard 21:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

There is a consensus discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Infobox Aicraft consensus discussion on adopting a non-specifications summary infobox for aircraft articles. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In reference to Medicine in Ancient Greece

Seeing that the sixth vote came a few minutes too late, I took the liberty of nominating the article to Wikipedia:Medicine_Collaboration_of_the_Week. I believe there it will have a better treatment. --Francisco Valverde 15:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Marklar

Seeing as Marklar redirects to Marklar (disambiguation), wouldn't it be the standard to have the disambiguation directly at the Marklar page to save time and bandwidth?

I'd do it right away but I'm just making sure. --Crazysunshine 01:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Since there is no given reason not to, I have made this change. --Crazysunshine 02:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banco Central burglary at Fortaleza

I can't find news about it in english, but I updated the reference section using a portuguese news.

[edit] New Medicine COTW

--Francisco Valverde 19:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German-style board game

Hi! You recently contributed to a discussion about re-titling German-style board game. I though it might interest you to know I've put the article up at Requested moves to be moved to Designer game. If you're interested, I'd welcome yuor input at Talk:German-style board game. Percy Snoodle 13:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raoul "El Cid" Hernandez

the quote was wrong it was supposed to be he spent most of his life in and out of prison. me > you 07:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Malik1

[edit] Re: Jerry Taylor article

Well if he's the only Jerry Taylor the page should probably be moved to Jerry Taylor. At any rate I've deleted the "deleted page" notice so that axes the protection too. --W.marsh 03:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I can still do the pagemove if you like (not sure if non-admins can do such a move or not). --W.marsh 03:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Rhapsody desktop.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Rhapsody desktop.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tyler Hamilton head.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tyler Hamilton head.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 23:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can