User talk:Olivierd
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello Olivierd, and welcome to Wikipedia! The first thing you should know is that we encourage you to be bold. Feel free to edit and improve articles, by clicking any 'edit' link.
If you'd like to test what Wikipedia can do, check out the sandbox - just type and save the page and your text will appear. That's the beauty of a Wiki.
For more information check out our tutorial - it's designed with newcomers in mind, as is the help section. If you'd like to get involved with current projects, have a look at the Community Portal. There are always tasks for users to do, ranging from copyediting to expanding stubs.
I hope you'll enjoy your time here, but be warned, it can become addictive! Feel free to message me, I'm more than happy to help. As an added tip, sign any message you post so users know that you've said it. To do so is delightfully simple, just use the wikicode ~~~~.
Once again, welcome! James Kendall [talk] 23:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Douglas Adams
Part of the point I was making is that the inclusion of The Great Ape Project had NO reference at all. It HAS now been properly referenced, but I shouldn't HAVE to go and look it up if someone else is wanting to include it. That's why all additions to articles are supposed to be verifiable, and why that link comes up in EVERY edit window, before anyone clicks on save. --JohnDBuell 13:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spam Possibly useless link on Ethics of eating meat article
I have responded on my talk page, and asked for consensus on the article's talk page.--Hq3473 15:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edgware road statue
I agree with you on that! I've already posted the question on a London Underground forum I read. When I get an answer there (someone should know/be able to find out quite easily) I'll add it to the picture description. Thryduulf 17:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- The photo is not bad on the Edgware Road page, so we might as well leave it there until the space is needed for a better picture. I don't think that an article on a single statue (with exceptions for very notable statues like the Statue of Liberty) will meet the notability requirements for an article of its own. If there is a more general article about statues in London then I think it would be apropriate there. I know nothing about statues though so I can't help you on what that article would be if it exsts! Thryduulf 12:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Omnivore
Hello. There seem to be a disagreement on weither humans are omnivores or not. =\
- As the article says, "they are able to digest the components of plants in the manner of herbivores but also readily assimilate nutrients from meat." Description fits humans. It is a matter of capability.
- The phrase "Many primates" is means "many species of primates." It is not about individuals.
- Is your objection that not all humans are eating meat? Well, there are always exceptions, you know? (Yes, I know that a large fraction of the world population are vegs.)
...Oh, and the article about humans also states that humans are omnivores. That has to dealt with (or not, depending on the outcome of this).
Think about it? --CAD6DEE2E8DAD95A (hello!) 14:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The problematic status of ancestor
Dear Olivierd, the monophyletic groups do not include ancestors. Taxonomy deals with real organisms or their fossil traces and not with purely hypothetical entities of any sort, ancestors included. If you only allow ancestors in the scheme you will be caught in a vicious circle discovered many years ago. See paraphyly talk page for a rehearsal of this discussion. So, I modified the definition of paraphyly back and made appropriate changes to the other parts of the article. I see, monophyly needs cleanup too. Cheers, Alexei Kouprianov 16:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikiproject proposal
Hi, I am posting this message to everyone who has edited on animal rights or animal welfare related articles in the last couple of months. I have just created a proposal for a WikiProject to help co-ordinate editors on the many articles under the mentioned subjects. If you would like to find out about it or show your support for such a project, please visit User:Localzuk/Animal Rights Proposal and Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects#WikiProject Animal Rights and Welfare. Cheers, Localzuk (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Scarecrow
Would this source interest you? NTK 09:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information. Any information on the subject interests me.
- However, that doesn't justify putting back that information on the "cat" page. Not only because the opinion of vegancats.com on the subject may not be reliable (their experience is not necessarily the whole picture); mainly, because it may well be that vegan cats have more kidney stones, but less cancer, but more diabetes, but less skin problems, but more this, and less that, and so on. It might be justified to put on the "cat" page a comprehensive study comparing the health value of the different diets - and also mentioning that the welfare of the cats is not the only issue, what happens to the cows and chicken that meat-fed cats eat counts too, at least in the opinion of some people. But it is not interesting, and not fair, to overload the page with partial information that all goes in the same direction - beware, beware, beware that cats are carnivores, don't feed them a veggy diet!
- David Olivier 14:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Just an onlooker / Vapour
Sorry, about the above person / persons personal attack on Talk:Veg (I suspect some sockpuppetry). I'm trying to rehabilitate the Wikipedia:Troll as per WP:BITE, before brining in the big guns. --Mig77(t) 08:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vegetarian nutrition
Please review my additon to Talk:Vegetarian_nutrition#Protein re your revert of my edits. I am not here to debate whose "truth" the page "should" reflect, rather that my edits follow the official policies of this site. Mdbrownmsw 18:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
