User talk:Monk of the highest order
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] WP:TOL
You wrote: I'm a bird man... na na na na na na... oh wait? Oh yeah, I just have a boxload of eastern north america bird books, so I'll be... processing the information onto wikipedia. If you know what I mean.
Actually, if you look at WP:BIRD, you'll see the standard is to not use the American books, but to use the British books. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- I know the book I have is not the de facto standard for bird articles, and I do use the standard North American list (which is accepted) when it comes to species' names, but as for the books I have, those are useful for description if for nothing else. For example, one of my books is The Sibley Field Guide To Birds (of Eastern North America) and I've seen Sibley guides used as sources multiple times. Now whether all data from books outside the standard choices are completely banned from use is ambiguous as detailed on the WP:birds page, but I was under the impression that the Handbook of Birds of the World, the AOU's Check-list of North American Birds, and the ABA checklist, while the law of the land as for taxonomy of birds of North America, were not necessarily inclusive sources for all ornithological information (don't I use big words? Fancy). That although the Handbook of Birds of the World is to take priority over other books detailling information about birds of the Northern hemisphere, it does not rule out the use of other books as sources of information, such as the Smithsonian Handbook of Birds of North America, to contribute knowledge about a particular species, genus, or family to wikipedia.
- Perhaps I interpreted the guidelines wrong. If so, explain to me what I was supposed to gain from that page, and what part of the page expresses that meaning. Thank you for watching out for ne'rdowells, but I assure you I only have good intentions and try hard to stay within the rules. If I actually have slipped up here, feel welcomed to correct me. -Monk of the highest order 17:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] UK Thrash
Hey there. I just saw your post to the mediation cabal and took a look at the above article, as you requested. I agree, it fails the guidelines for webpages. I've suggested to him that if he has reliable sources, they be added to the article ASAP; if not, in a couple of days, I'll put it up on articles for deletion and let the community in general comment on it. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Google test
Hi. The "Google test" is not a criteria for speedy delete. Please feel free to nominate thought the article for deletion process. ---J.S (T/C) 09:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Whoops, my mistake. Will do. Thought that was significant enough for a test on non-notable, but after looking at the search engine test page, I realize it's probably not. Nominated. -Monk of the highest order(t) 20:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
