User talk:Rgamble

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feel free to post comments here.

I know it is quite a while that you don't come to Wikipedia. I'd really appreciate if you can add some references to the shark shark mythology section... --pippo2001 03:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Rgamble, I think I blew away your edit to Grand Prix Legends - first time here and I thought my changes were lost so I re-edited. You're right, it does read like an ad.

Killer, another biologist. We seen to be endandergered around here. Welcome aboard! I like what you have done with the fishes articles. Good work! (Although, we may need to have species' articles listed by binomial name in the future - since common names are anything but - but we can talk about that later) You need anything, don't hesitate to ask for help. Most of us don't bite (at least not hard). :)Cheers. --maveric149

  • Actually, I wasn't the original author of the fish article. I agree with the advice on the usage of binomial names, and that is why I'll include them (like I did in the Cod article). I'll probably modify the fish one a bit, putting in the binomial names for the species the original author mentioned, and use those as the links. Sound good?

--rgamble

Not sure what you mean exactly... My idea actually was to make the primary articles with the binomial name (Gadus morhua) for example. Then we could have an entry and link in the cod article about that specific fish species with a one-line description. We would also have any other species of fish on that page that has a common name that includes "cod" (if memory serves, there are several different species of fish that in some parts of the world, that only have a common name of "cod"). We, of course, would have to be careful that we don't go overboard on this though -- there are some common names that are known world-wide and are truely "common" (although I can't think of any right now). maveric149

Take a look at what I've done with the whitefish, cod and Gadus morhua articles. Not sure if it would be better to leave the whitefish article without the binomials. Comments welcome. --rgamble

Yep, you are on the right track. I just reformatted the Gadus morhua article and expaned the cod article to show specifically what I had in mind. What do you think? --maveric149

Looks good. I would prefer to have a common name in most articles (with the binomial afterwards) simply because I'm a big believer in scientists needing to explain things to non-scientists in as non-threatening a manner as possible. :) However, having the binomial as its own entry was a very good idea.

--rgamble

Yeah, I've changed my mind - the order should be reversed. I myself rarely refer to fishes or any other living animal by their scientific name before mentioning the common name. Of course a redirect from the scientific name to the article should always be done as well as having the scientific name after the most common, common name for English speakers. And we should take the "common name" issue on a case by case basis. I will go ahead and change the test articles to illustrate this. (it is still good to have the "cod" article, since there are many fishes with cod in their common names)--maveric149

Thanks for the Ching Shih article - looks extremely interesting! :) -- April

I left a general note on nomenclature on Talk:Magnoliophyta that you might find interesting. Cheers! --maveric149

  • Maveric149, thanks for the pointer... Looks interesting but I'm somewhat on the tired side tonight so I'll look at it tomorrow or the weekend when I have more time. Thanks again. :)

Hi rgamble. Beatiful contribution of Battle of Hurtgen Forest. I put there standard headers for battles: History - Military history -- List of battles -- World War II. I also rearrnaged it a bit: put quotes at end. Maybe you will consider to put somthing similar in all next pages you will edit. If you are World War II fan, maybe you will try to fiil blank Battle of Crete, Battle of Okinawa etc. szopen

  • Thanks for the compliment. I'll attempt to format any future such articles as you suggest. Unfortunately I know little about the two battles you mentioned (Okinawa and Crete). I discovered the Hurtgen battle in a roundabout way through a wargaming magazine's review of a book on the battle, and it sounded interesting so I picked up a couple of different books (the ones cited). If however, I ever read up on Okinawa and Crete, I'll check to see if they're still open here. ;) Rgamble

Good luck to everyone in their efforts to build the wikipedia. I have learned much reading the topics (and writing others). I have also learned that it usually only takes about a week or so of participation before I get irritated and spend far more time on here fixing what I consider to be immature vandalism, or in arguments about science and other such things. I feel I am actually hurting the wikipedia with my negativity and so will leave for the time being. I may come back as an IP address, in which case I will simply input new articles, copyedit, or whatever, and stay out of discussions, leaving that to those who get annoyed less quickly than myself. Rgamble

I'm sorry to hear about your hurried departure. Be assured that there was nothing personal in my rushing to 62's defense. Your reply to my talk:VANDALISM comments was far more in line with what I would see as required on that page. In fact, the one transgression of those which you mentioned that would have bothered me most (putting "our lord..." at all and sundry places) wasn't even mentioned in your original claim of Vandalism. I interpret claims of vandalism as something more serious than simply disagreeing with the specifics of an article. The up side of people who make immature entries is that they don't usually have the attention span to stick around very long; the down side is that there's always a new one to be a replacement who doesn't even have the experience of being yelled at by other wikepedians.
    • Eclecticology, be assured that I didn't depart because of your defense. Combination of things including some RL stress made me feel I had better uses of my time. I am still unsure that a project like this will eventually succeed, but I'm going to be doing a small part again here. Had been thinking it anyhow, but then I noticed that IT (my designation for 62.98. since there's no indication of gender besides the fact that I associate the immature activities more with a teen aged male...) attacked the most holy of subjects... fish, and I will not stand for it.
Arguments about science will never end. If they did, that might be evidence that the scientific method had failed. I agree that some of those arguments are the product of inexperience with science, but to me that is an acceptable price for the democritization of knowledge. There are also more traditional controversies which are not likely to end such as science vs. pseudoscience, but that too is ok. Scientists often have the habit of dismissively ignoring science when they get into that can of worms.
    • Note that I have no problems with arguments about science and I fully believe that any theory should be discarded or modified if it doesn't fit the facts. What I was irritated about was the removal, or threats of removal, of parts of topics based on personal beliefs or "Well, my friends all say this..." rather than actually understanding the science involved or even attempting the basic research that would show the information was valid (more about this on my main page here...)
For any kind of democratized body of knowledge to work effectively a great deal of tolerance is essential. If we are to question the established wisdom of experts on its merits, we must also accept that as our own expertise develops it too will be subjected to challenges.
    • No problems here whatsoever. Always happy to learn something new. However, the lessons I was being 'taught' here have nothing to do with wisdom and were lessons that I'd already known. Immature people can do far more damage and use less resources than it takes to fix it being the one that annoyed me the most.
My suggestion would be to reconsider your departure, and maintain your signature. (62's lack of signature tainted his credibility.) By all means continue to contribute where you feel you are most useful. Allow your dealing with fools to be limited to what your blood pressure will allow. Eclecticology
    • 62's lack of signature didn't taint his credibility for me. His vandalism did. There are many articles by many folks who don't have names here, that are very nicely written. If a person wants to be completely anonymous then that's their choice and I don't judge them based on it. Anyhow, I'm back... third time's either a charm, or most likely the last time. Rgamble
Welcome back Eclecticology
Yes, please stay. Your contributions are most valuable. If you need any assistance fighting off miscreants just drop me a line on my talk and I will get right on it (I don't mind the occasional confrontation). --maveric149, Sunday, April 7, 2002

I've been doing a little work on the orphan list and ran into the Yellow pike article, whose total content is "A common name for the freshwater fish more often called walleye." As the resident fish expert (relatively) you may have a better idea whether this article should be a redirect or deleted altogether. Eclecticology, Friday, April 26, 2002

  • Yeah, I'd done that article (after deleting the outdated info by 62.98.xx.xx. Removed the content and will add to the pages to be deleted page. I need to get hold of a book I've seen with the accepted common name (one only) for most common fishes (as decided by ichthyologists and most common usage). All other common names should probably be removed, even if they only redirect to the more accepted one, and a list of other common names put in the article itself (and then will show up in a search). Thanks. Rgamble

Thank you for dealing with it. I'm ichthyally challenged, and couldn't fairly cope with the matter. Meanwhile, I found another fishy orphan that I know nothing about: Wellfleet oyster. As much as I can see where you're going with it, I can't completely agree with reducing everything to one common name the way that a species can have only one Latin binomial. Since common names are often regional or local, giving any one priority can be a problem. You are right that they will show up in searches (as long as it's not an eel, a gar, a ray or other three letter fish), but names in titles do have precedence. Eclecticology

---

Hello, I was hoping to write an article on the 'other' Carmina Burana, namely the body of about 1000 songs/poems now housed at Augsburg University. Should this be on your Carmina Burana page, or a separate one? I'd appreciate your advice.

User:Renata

  • I'm not actually sure what the procedure is to disambiguate the two... Is this the work that Orff took part of the poetry from for his piece? If so, you might link to where I mention it as his inspiration to another topic called Carmina Burana (poetry), or something similar. Any help from people more in the know would be appreciated..

Rgamble


[edit] Conchology

You might not be the person to ask this, but I found you in the history of Mollusc; I've totally revamped the Conchology page, basing it structurally on Entomology, and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look and maybe cleaning it up/ giving feedback/correcting typos/whatever neccesary. I would appreciate it. Thanx! СПУТНИКССС Р 22:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)