User talk:Fluri/archives/2007Jun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Your edit to American black bear

Why be meticulous when someone more competent will just come by and fix it?[1] I've been editing for 9 months now and still can't format all this crap. I knew someone would come by and fix the San Diego Natural History Museum or whatever the site was, reference for the Anon IP, and here you are, just that someone. Thanks for cleaning the article up. KP Botany 01:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. The only trouble with your approach, as I see it, is that it relies on someone else to track down and find that error. You presuppose that a reference to a page that is close to, but that does not contain, the information cited is of some intrinsic value in itself. If you find the information somewhere, surely it can't be more difficult to point to the precise page than it is to point to the site? Cheers! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 01:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, this one isn't how I usually do it. I simply can't format the dang references, no matter how much I try (while we're chatting can you make this one look pretty?[2] No issue if you can't, someone will make it work.).(<--- if I were British instead of American this wouldn't arise.) Today, for the first time, I think I actually got a date correct. Yes, vague references are difficult, and I actually do revert some of them when they I can't find the information on them, or I ask for exact references. I do try to encourage folks who are trying to add helpful information, though, and I appreciate when other editors try to weigh anon-IP inputs to see if there is any value rather than just reverting all of them (although the latter is safer). KP Botany 02:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
done — Dave (Talk | contribs) 03:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, that part looks better--too bad I didn't realize how crappy it was until you fixed it. Thanks. However, the problematic one that I can't figure out is where it prints out under the references like (you'll have to look on that page, of course):

^ [JD] (1997). "Submarine pollination in the marine angiosperm Zostera marina (Zosteraceae) I: The influence of floral morphology on fluid flow".

On the actual page it has multiple spaces after flow and before the close double quotation marks--but when I copy and paste, there are no extra spaces, as above. Do you see this, or am I seeing dybbuks? KP Botany 04:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elk (Cervus canadensis)

I am sorry I felt I had to revert your changes. While the article needs work, your edits introduced a number of typos into it. American units and language seem appropriate in an article about an American animal. Species are usually capitalised on Wikipedia. I am sure we can work together on improving the article. Best wishes, --John 21:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did see a typo in what you reverted. It seems like you reverted an awful lot of work for one or two or even a few typos. As for the units, I changed none of them, I only spelled the American ones out in full. BTW, the animal exists both in Asia and in America so it's hardly an American animal. Finally, as for capitalizing the species name, the Manual of Style says that there is no rule and that the only thing is consistency. So, in the end, a couple of hours of work down the tubes. Oh, well, I'll know better next time. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you are right about the capitalizations...there is no set rule, but I was going by the suggestions made on the featured article candidate comments which can be linked to from here. I think the North American spelling in this article is best since they are most common on that continent. I suggested to John that if Red Deer is brought up to featured level, it should use British English, since it is a European species and can be found in remote areas of the British Isles. If you can. is there anything esle that might need discussion...please comment at the FAC, or indeed iif something is misspelled such as (downslope---down slope), please do correct it. I think the units of measurement are normally shortened such as foot---ft, etc. but not sure on that either. I think consistancy is best.--MONGO 22:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the revert to your edits was in error, but MONGO is a responsible editor and member of the community and is looking over your edits to incorporate them into the article--thanks for taking the time to edit the prose. I'm writing a large article on a botanical subject which I hope to post next weekend. My pose is rather turgid and usually needs some substantial editing, which is generally done by other botany editors. I would greatly appreciate if you would edit for clarity/style after I post the article, though, as I think you could do wonders for my writing style, even if you know very little about the topic (those brutal Wikipedia botanists will handle substantive issues). Let me know. KP Botany 22:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your words of support. Unfortunately, John and, elsewhere, MONGO favour the reversion and I have absolutely no intention of getting into an edit war or a big pissing contest about any of it. To be honest, I do find it curious since wholesale reversion of those edits can mean only one thing: that the edits I contributed were entirely without merit and were better excised, in toto, from the article. Well, "live and learn", I suppose. I've thousands of edits to my credit and this is the first time I've been told that my edits are entirely worthless. I've been a researcher and I've written for the primary, secondary and tertiary literature, and for the popular press, on biology and natural history among other areas. Certainly, I don't intend this as an "appeal to authority" but I also can say without fear of contradiction that I've never before been told my writing is without merit.
But, hey, it's not like it's the end of the world or anything. I know for a fact that there are other articles out there with other editors who have welcomed my contributions. I'll stick to those. You see, it really was my mistake. That stuff was posted on the article's talk page saying that one needs to be ruthless in eliminating redundancy as part of bringing the article to FA status. Apparently, I erred in assuming that I was helping at that and the article's owners demonstrated my error quite clearly.
There are two things I find exceedingly strange, though. Firstly, after an earlier section re-write I did in the article, MONGO posted a note to my talk page, here, thanking me, admonishing me to be bold and asking me to continue editing the article. Now he seems to support the thesis that these last edits were worthless. Secondly, after saying he supports the reversion and that my contributions contained inaccuracies, MONGO's gone on to re-integrate many (most?) of them, whole cloth, back into the article with only, at best, minor changes.
Oh, well, no worries. There are some 1.5 · 106 other articles out there that need help. It appears this one doesn't. Cheers! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 03:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. I'll try to reinstate the bits of your edit I thought were ok. I should not have reverted. Basically I approve getting rid of redundancy, but not the other changes I mentioned. --John 04:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict and consequent refactor)Thank you for that, although you certainly did not hurt my feelings. I was surprised but not hurt by the turn of events. You, however, are a very courageous and kind person to admit that you had erred in reverting my edits.
If you'll permit me, though, I would like to ask you more directly about some of the things you've said, so that I might improve as an editor. Firstly, you say there were "bits" of my edit that you "thought were ok" but that you don't "approve [of ...] the other changes". Let me examine this a bit, if I may.
Firstly, you said: "...your edits introduced a number of typos..." That is true. Remember, though, that the article was not entirely without typos to begin with and that, after a first pass rewrite such as I did, a few typos are to be expected. I'd have corrected them on the next pass. I also corrected some pre-existing typos with my edits.
Next, you said: "American units and language seem appropriate in an article about an American animal." As far as I am aware, I used American language in everything I contributed. I did not change any units other than to spell out, in full, the American units, changing "in" to "inch" and "ft" to "feet", etc, since those units are rarely used elsewhere in the world and the abbreviations are unlikely to be familiar to people who have had no exposure to American measure. I made no other changes whatsoever to any American measure except to ensure they were properly wikified and that there was a "&nbsp:" in each of them.
You went on to say: "Species are usually capitalised on Wikipedia." Well, as far as I know, this is just false and even a quick reference to the Manual of Style will demonstrate that. In fact, this says precisely the opposite, namely that the topic "has been hotly debated" and that, by way of truce, both styles are deemed accceptable. If you wish to raise the issue of consistency, please note that it was my intention to make it consistent but that I was interrupted prior to achieving that.
Finally, you said: "I am sure we can work together on improving the article." Well, yes, that was my hope, as well.
So, precisely what are "the other changes [you] mentioned" that you did not agree with? Again, it's not my wish to belabour this but, if you feel you can offer me some less cryptic advice that would improve my editing, I would welcome the same. Cheers! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 04:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fluri...John has worked with me on one other featured article and also contributed to a similar article, namely the one on Red Deer. It is possible since you hadn't edited the Elk article in some time, that he reverted your changes (just making a wide conjecture here) since he didn't see any comments by you to the talkpage or the featured article candidate page. I did re-add a lot of your changes, making only a few alterations to keep the capitalization all the same for now. I'm not set in concrete on the capitalization, so I do think the best thing to do is for all of use to get back to the FAC page and discuss what else needs to be done to get this article to be featured. If we reach a concensus on lower case as opposed to uppercase, then that's fine. Don't be put off by the revert, I know John wasn't doing it to be malicious, and my support of most of the revert wasn't either.--MONGO 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fluri, the units were my misunderstanding. It was really just the typos and the capitalisation thing that made me revert. As I said, I shouldn't have done it. Thanks MONGO for your understanding. --John 15:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, John, for your patience in this matter. I will now consider it, with your permission, of course, closed. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 15:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 216.

Just report him to WP:AIV. -Jeske (v^_^v) 15:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Done about 9 min before your post. 216.73.77.211 has been blocked by Canderson7 for 48 h. Thanks for your interest. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that after I posted. I was the one who reported him the first time (resulting in the 31-hr. block). -Jeske (v^_^v) 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting External Links

It seems unfair that anyone can come right behind you and delete the work you took the time to create. External links are just that- only an external link to a page referencing the subject at hand. If your going to constantly delete them, then you just as well remove the external link portion on every page. Especially when all you do is say "Oh it's a commercial Link" That's unfair and unethical! Most are informational only...How would you feel if someone kept coming behind you and deleting your contributions even though you felt they were important or informational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.6.227 (talk • contribs)

You may feel it's unfair but Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Did you bother to read the direction I pointed out to you at WP:EL and at WP:COI? Griping is not particularly useful. Why not spend your time improving the article or, at the very least, pointing out how those links do not violate WP:EL or WP:COI? See, it's quite easy to complain but it's hard to make meaningful contributions to these pages. Do you deny that they are commercial links? You were forewarned, links that do not conform to WP:EL will be deleted without delay. I see from looking at your contibs that the sum total of your contributions have been adding external links from the wideworldofhunting.com website. You are a spammer and your links will be deleted. Please stop. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 12:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article nomination for ocean sunfish article

After lots of work on the article, I've nominated ocean sunfish for Featured Article status. I noticed your post at Talk:Ocean sunfish, and thought you might be interested in taking part in the nomination discussion. I hope to see you there! PaladinWhite 01:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming Convention

Lol he did that to my article too and in this matter I think you're probably right he seems very stubborn. But in saying that, I prefer his way so that is why I was pleased when he changed my article. By the way I'm referring to your conversation with the user UtherSRG. TeePee-20.7 07:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)