User talk:Ethel Aardvark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Ethel Aardvark, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  What an intriguing user name - trust you wear it well... SatuSuro 10:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Sorghum

Are you aware that you're erasing huge portions of this article with your edits? Have a look at this diff which shows your latest edit. Most of the article's content, including legitimate links to the article in other languages, are removed. I have reverted your edit for the second time; I wanted to make sure you knew why I was doing so. Obviously, if you just want to edit or add something to the article, that would be fine! Cheers. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 23:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks for the response, and I'm glad to understand what you're trying to do. I did not write the article, and have no knowledge on sorghum (commercial or otherwise), so by all means, continue with your edits. In the future though, it would be extremely helpful if you used edit summaries to give a brief description of the changes you are making. Particularly when you are making such large, sweeping (although necessary!) changes, to someone looking in from the outside, it might appear you were simply trying to blank sections of the article. Cheers! --PeruvianLlama(spit) 00:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to him Ethyl, and yes -- please do put edit summaries in. We tried to respond to vandalism as fast as possible... large blankings without knowing why are bad. ;) --Auto(talk / contribs) 00:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, edit summaries. I did not know about those. Still learning. Thanks for the heads up guys.

Hi Ethel, I redid that edit to Sorghum, chinese wine is a distilled beverage so it's actually a liquor. I've added a redirect to the Chinese wine article in the page.Ticklemygrits 06:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning Your Edits to Eucalyptus

Please be aware that removing the taxobox from a biological article is considered to be gross vandalism.--Mr Fink 22:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I assume the above was an innocent mistake, as I came here to thank you for your ongoing edits to Acacia and Eucalyptus taxon articles, which have been coming up on my watchlist all week. Keep up the good work! Hesperian 04:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning Your Edits to Eucalyptus 2

Hi Ethel

I note your editing comments regarding the removal of the canopy ground covering that is used as a determinig factor when discerning between forest and woodland eucalypts. I understand your point in that, in isolation, canopy cover defines a forest and not the trees, etc., and that you describe this as your reason for removing the remarks. As the contributor of that information I would like to comment that this information was referenced to Brooker and Kleinig (2001) and is intended as a means to define characteristics associates witheucalypt description and identification and not with regard to forests and woodlands per se. I appreciate your efforts to make the article clearer, but this matter is a key point in tree identity and motives for editing, in my opinion, are to improve and article and clarify matters. I would have liked you to have made the point in a different way, if possible, rather than delete it out of hand without citing a reference when you didn't agree with it.

Thanks HelloMojo 09:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Ethel

As you have requested i will quote from Brooker and Kleinig:

"As a generalisation, "forest trees" are single-stemmed and have a crown forming a minor proportion of the whole tree height, with the combined forest crowns occupying at least 30% of the ground cover. "Woodland trees" are single-stemmed although they may branch at a short distance above ground level, and have a crown occupying a major proportion of the tree height, with the combined crowns occupying less than 30% of the ground cover.

Having reflected on the above and the original edit I did I can see that there are interpretative errors in my edit. If you would like to make cleaner sense of the above in the article, as I see you have attempted in historic edits,then by all means, please, go ahead.

Thanks

HelloMojo 11:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

Gnangarra has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi Ethel, welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed your edits to the lead of Indigenous Australians the lead is a 2-4 paragraph summary of the article. It should carry pertinent information about the subject, as such the time frame for arrival should be noted in the lead. This guide WP:LEAD explains the topic and I recommend you take the time to read it along with Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If I can be of any assistance just ask. Gnangarra 02:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rainforest

I have removed the pp-semi-protected template you added to the article as it doesn't seem to be protected. Please let me know if I'm wrong, and please don't do it again if I'm right. Regards, Mr Stephen 23:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Mr Stephen 23:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pleistocene megafauna and New World Pleistocene extinctions

Your edits here are rather unhelpful; they are poorly written and appear to contain original research. On the former article, I already incorporated all useful information from your contribution. The way, the truth, and the light 05:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ethel Aardvark, you appear to have reverted Pleistocene megafauna about 5 times in 26 hours or so, with no discussion that I can see. I suggest you read WP:3RR, and more importantly engage in discussion of the issues. Cheers Geologyguy 04:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss your objections on Talk:Megafauna. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 03:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule on Megafauna. In the future, please solve editing disputes through discussion rather than edit warring. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I attempted to discuss this with the user who repeatedly reverted my contributions. I pointed out that I was happy to provide any references required and was more than happy that he edit my contributions. You can confirm this on his own talk page. When the person in question refused to discuss or provide reasons as to why he was reverting my contributions then it is of course impossible to resolve the issue through discussion. I repeat, if anyone feels that my contributons are unsound then I am more than happy to provide references. If someone feels the quality is sub-standard then they can of course clean up the grammar, typos etc. When someone's sole contribution is to revert all my additions and refuses to enter into discussion on why then of course discussion is impossible. "

Decline reason: "Edit-warring is not a substitute for dispute resolution. MaxSem 08:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Ethel Aardvark 06:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Megafauna

Howdy, I have made some changes to the Pleistocene megafauna article, as well as re-reverted Megafauna. My principle concern is discussion, so if you're not unblocked, I would be happy to discuss the changes here on your talk page. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 06:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indigenous Australian

Hi Ethel, I've culled off all of that stuff added by the IP, I did notice you tried to clean it up. With articles that big if an IP adds without referencing instead of chanllenging the fact just delete. Gnangarra 08:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signing comments

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as in Talk:Banana, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- Why Not A Duck 23:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indigenous

Hi Ethel, I notice that you undid my removal of the main article link to race and crime. Perhaps my edit summary was unclear or it should have been discussed on the talk page. My reasons for removing it are primarily these:

  1. They are not a race.
  2. That fallacy aside, "Whether there is a relationship between race and crime is a subject of debate."[1]

You also stated that "Aborigines perpetrate violence on other Aborigines". No doubt, but that is not what the paragraph describes. It only refers to the statistical information as victims of crime. Let me know what you think. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 03:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Ethel. I always appreciate people taking the time to respond, however astounding it may be. Your edit summary/comment incorrectly assumed that the victims alleged assailants were 'aboriginal', that information is not provided. The 'however edit' was not mine, you should discuss that with him. I removed the Main Article link to Race and crime, it is highly disputed and not the main article for this section. I gave my reasons for removing it, please provide a reason for including it. I will indulge you a little by addressing the other issues you have decided are pertinent.

  • I'm not disputing the statistics, but they would be of individuals who ticked a box that identified themselves as 'indigenous' - not as a race.
  • How is categorisation determined, other than self identification? Who makes this determination?
  • If the person is of 'mixed race', how do we know which is the criminal one?

To state that some people are a race is to confuse term with fact. We agree on the biological basis, perhaps this will extend the foundations of AFAYK;

  • The fifth point criticized the layperson use of the term "race": "To most people, a race is any group which they choose to describe as a race. Thus, many national, religious, geographic, linguistic or cultural groups have, in such loose usage, been called 'race', when obviously Americans are not a race, nor are Englishmen, nor are Frenchmen, nor any other national group. Catholics, Protestants, Moslems and Jews are not races... People who live in Iceland or England or India are not races; nor are people who are culturally Turkish or Chinese..."
  • Because of this popular misconception which assert a pseudo-scientific correspondence between "racial groups" and "national, religious, geographic, linguistic and cultural groups," the UNESCO advocated to "drop the term 'race' altogether and speak of "ethnic groups."

This is from the article on The Race Question. I am providing this as gentle guidance, not a citation. Your extraordinary claim will require one or two references, I believe they are required in these situations. I am curious whether similar examples of somepeople and crime (or ethnicity and crime) can be found on wikipedia. There is a large amount of historical racist policy and practice relating to "race from a sociological, cultural and legistlative perspective" in Australia, perhaps that is where the 'race' angle requires explanation. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 08:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White vs white

Hi, on this edit you reverted my change of the only instance of the word White' to white. I agree that using your rationale, in this particular instance it probably makes sense to use "White Australians". But if you are going to make a stand for this one instance, please read the rest of the article - I think you would find that many other references to "white Australians" are in exactly the same context and should also be White Australians, if you feel there is any case for using White Australians "ever" rather than "white Australians". For example, later in the same paragraph, the same phrase refers to the same group of people. If you are capitalising one, capitalise the other.

My personal opinion is there is never a need to capitalise White or Black in this context. I am open to other opinions. But the article needs to have a consistant style. Garrie 23:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] comment

Hello again Ethel, I noticed your edit here:. I fully endorse the decision to remove it, thank you for doing so. Keep up the 'surveying';-) Regards, Fred ☻ 16:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MOVE

You may want to take a look at Help:Moving a page. Simply cutting text from one page and pasting it into another is not the best way to move things around here. If needed, an admin can delete the target page if it has more one edit. --mav 00:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure I understand it, but at least I now know that it exists. Ethel Aardvark 11:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)