User talk:Richard001/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Ear image deletion

Hi there, re your comment at Human vestigiality, the image doesn't seem to have been deleted and it doesn't look like it will [(discussion)]. Can I replace it in the article for now? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the it had been deleted and the discussion closed, but now it appears to have reopened... Richard001 (talk) 06:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hey Richard - thanks for pointing out the link to "conservapedia" - If I remember correctly, I just tossed a link in there to indicate that I wasn't spouting off about something that can't be found elsewhere... Not to present something as fact. I'll find a different source if you can remind me where I linked it. I know the conservapedia site is less than credible. I'm just beginning to learn how this all works... Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FloridaJarrett (talk • contribs) 10:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Richard, I have been uploading all my images not in Commons (didn't know this was wrong), thank you for the advice.

ZoofanNZ (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Have the book in hands...

Hi Richard, I checked out The Power of Movement in Plants from the library to make a few scans of my own. I have neither the time nor ambition to scan all 196 figures or even all 592 pages, but while I have the book, are there any particular pages/images that I should scan for future use? - tameeria (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I haven't actually even looked at that one Tameeria. I just stopped by that article to slap a banner on it and give it a rating, so I can't really offer any advice. Richard001 (talk) 06:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I guess I'll ask that question on Wikiproject Plants then to see if anyone there would want to use specific figures from it. - tameeria (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oops

Thanks for telling me, didn't realize. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] I see

Thanks for the insight. I've had a time trying to figure out the correct etiquette for everything. Re: Isthmus, I thought the same thing, but that was the article's first example of a geological barrier. Also, upwellings are an example of a geological barrier, though not solid, it still acts as a virtual barrier. Therefore, I feel it might be better to say "geological barriers such as upwellings" instead of and.

I welcome your thoughts. -JasonSpradlin82 (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Champions Of The Magnificent City.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Champions Of The Magnificent City.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nice

Go on, remove those pop culture sections! I hate those things XD delldot on a public computer talk 10:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AUK

WikiProject Auckland This is an invitation to WikiProject Auckland, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's articles on Auckland. Please feel free to join us.

Taifarious1 22:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Teaching of evolution in Pakistan

I wouldn't agree with the claim of evolutionism not being taught in Pakistan HE. Although, Creationism is taught as part of the Religious education, Evolutionism remains intrinsic (though not very distinct) part of scientific knowledge in universities (one of the reasons why we won't find many sources). At intellectual level, there have been attempts in the past to link the two by the mathematician Mashriqi and others. In recent times, the likes of Pervez Hoodbhoy have been struggling to bring about such dialogues by translating prominent books into Urdu through NGOs. The difference from Turkey is that the situation has not been made much public, as yet!--IslesCapeTalk 19:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, neither of the two (creationism and evolutionism) are taught 'exclusively' as subjects at any level of education. Religious education is available to all faiths. I would say Mashriqi was more on lines of theistics, but I'd have to go through the reference cited on his article. --IslesCapeTalk 19:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Life of Mammals

Thanks for your message. I didn't originally add the chimp photo to The Life of Mammals article, but I'm sure the reason for deletion was that no rationale was given. One small screenshot per article would be okay as long as a rationale is given in each case and it definitely illustrates the accompanying text. As regards critical reception, etc., I agree that more could be added but citations are sometimes hard to come by. Chris 42 (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:

Thank you for your concerns. I will keep an eye out in the future :) CWii(Talk|Contribs) 21:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subarticles

Discussions with you (and others) at Template:SubArticle have been productive and enjoyable. I'm busy for a few days, but please ping me if you don't get a response after that! I'd be glad to continue to help. Geometry guy 23:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dennett

I replied to your post on my talk page.D-rew (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

In re: citing wikipedia as ref.. Ah, ok. This I did not know. Thanks for pointing that out. Agreed, the Monarch article is terrible but I have not the time nor resources to take it on.Nickrz (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Life' trilogy

The first three were a trilogy and then the others followed. I'll have a delve into Attenborough's autobiography when I get a bit more time and see what I can find. :-) Chris 42 (talk) 13:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. While Attenborough does not refer to the first three specifically as a trilogy, he does state (when discussing The Private Life of Plants), "The time had come for me to change tack. I had made three major series covering three main aspects of animal history. [...] But the fundamental basis of animal life on this planet had been largely ignored." The trilogy, out of necessity, does give an overarching view of the animal and plant kingdoms, and The Living Planet in particular deals with environments and their inhabitants, including plant life. So the article introductions as they stand are not incorrect: Plants is a specialised survey — it's just that Attenborough dealt with all their different groups in one series instead of the separate ones devoted to the birds, mammals and reptiles, etc. Also, the reference to the trilogy in the David Attenborough article was there long before I started expanding the 'Life' articles and the text has remained unchanged, so nobody seems to disagree with it. In addition, it's referred to as a trilogy here, here and here. Chris 42 (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Velvet worm

Hi Richard, if you're still interested I've now finished my translation of this article from the German FA - sorry it took so long! Enjoy, --YFB ¿ 19:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your message about the page in question. I will keep an eye on that page and make sure to fix it better in the future. Bobo. 15:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Common mistakes

Hi, I've learned a few things from your "common mistakes" section. Thanks. There is one thing I keep correcting that you may want to add to your list (as said in Wikipedia:Tree_of_life#Article_titles):

  • Names of genera are always italicized and capitalized— Homo, Rosa, Saccharomyces.
  • Species epithets are always italicized and preceded by the name of the genus or an abbreviation of it— Homo sapiens or H. sapiens, but never plain sapiens, since such identifiers need not be unique. They are never capitalized.
  • Names of higher taxa are capitalized but not italicized— Hominidae, Mammalia, Animalia.

Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely a common mistake on biology pages, though I'd prefer to keep the list to more general mistakes. Richard001 (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{Request edit}} versus {{Editprotected}}

Hi Richard. Though the concepts are similar, I believe that {{Request edit}} was created at the suggestion of User:Jeffrey.Kleykamp in September 2007 specifically to address conflicts of interest. Are you thinking of a broader concept than the one Kleykamp proposed? I know that the name of {{Editprotected}} sounds similar. Since Kleykamp's idea appears to be COI-specific, shouldn't WIkipedia:Requested edits, if it is needed as a redirect at all, point to a COI-related page? I realize this is not an earthshaking issue; I was just searching around for documentation and I came across that redirect. EdJohnston (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I think a disambiguation would still be better than redirecting to a COI page. I created both redirects having typed in 'Wikipedia:Edit requests' hoping to find some guidance on requesting edits to protected pages, and got redirected there from Wikipedia:Edit Requests. Looking closer at the description of AN it doesn't seem that placing requests there is the thing to do at all, so it should probably point to the above two templates, perhaps as a disambiguation. Richard001 (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Free will

Hi Richard, When you get a chance, can you look at the additions to the talk page by LoveMonkey? I've already had a revert war with him on the talk page, and I've decide that, as long as it's on the talk page, I'm not going to worry about it, but if you have any thoughts on this, they would be appreciated. Either he's way off the mark, or so brilliant it's beyond me. Edhubbard

I'd go with the former; LoveMonkey's user page doesn't seem to indicate the possession of a full deck of cards... Seems to be flooding the talk page with edits too. Richard001 (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Richard, if you get a chance, I've realized that I am the only one of the old group of editors that brought this article up to FA status that is still active (see the talk page header for all of my departed co-editors). It's impossible to deal with LoveMonkey on my own, so I sort of abandoned the field of combat for a while. Now, it seems like it might be worth trying to really take on the issues you've raised, along with LoveMonkey's POV edits. Can you watch this page for the next week or so, and add your thoughts as I try to work with others to keep it as an FA article? I'm also going to alert some of the FA/FAR editors that I know, like SandyGeorgia. Edhubbard (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning vandals

Thanks for your input. Generally the people I've been advising haven't been handing out any warnings at all. I'll suggest that template to them in the future. xenocidic (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

Would you like to have rollback? It's more efficient for some anti-vandalism purposes than tools such as Twinkle.-gadfium 07:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it can't hurt. I'll give it a try. Richard001 (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You've got it.-gadfium 08:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you coming from WP:VPPROP? Don't you think rollback would be better if it let you roll back more than one edit? I don't know why they haven't modified Twinkle to do the same thing but better. Rollback seems to be just a faster version of undo that only works for the most recent edit (not that undo works that often when it's an older edit you're trying to undo...) People can obviously make things worse by 'rolling back' good edits with bad ones, but you have to assume people have some idea what they're doing (and that others will correct them if they go wrong, though you'd be mistaken in the latter assumption 90% of the time). Of course, I doubt any of these suggestions or any others relating to improving our anti-vandal capabilities will ever be adopted, but I've got to at least look like I'm trying (kind of like voting in the US elections). Richard001 (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I have seen that discussion, but I haven't formed an opinion on it. Rollback works with any number of edits, so long as they're all by the same user with no other edits intervening. It would be by far my most-used admin tool, and I consider my use of it conservative as I often use manual rollback so I can give a more useful edit summary. The time I find rollback essential is if I have someone who has made bad edits to a large number of articles, and few of those articles have been edited since. Most commonly, this is because they've added a spam link. After spot checking a few articles, I can just middle-click the rollback link on each of their entire range of contributions, and undo everything in a few seconds.-gadfium 08:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Dawkins FA

Hello Richard001. I have nominated the article Richard Dawkins for the FA status. Can you make some contributions for the article? Your help will be appreciated. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "some" green algae?

Can you clarify what you meant when you added the word some? As defined on plant and green algae, the plants include all the green algae. I'm not sure whether you are defining plant differently, green alga differently, or what. Kingdon (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right that green algae was kind of confusing; I've tried to fix it (per the reference I just added, it would be overreaching to say "all" people put green algae in Plantae, but it seems to be the general trend these days). As for rewriting the plant lede more generally, I'm much better at fact-checking and so on (I tend to agonize over wording, even when just writing a few sentences). But if you want to try writing something, I could review it (and other people at WT:PLANTS could probably do so even more knowledgeably than I). Kingdon (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Reverting Vandals

Ah, sorry about that. I misread the version history and thought he just added in line breaks, not realizing he broke the Etymology header. -- MacAddct  1984 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WikiProject Animals

Might I suggest using for the WP Animals banner? I replied on the above talk page, but I don't think the image currently being used works particularly well. Justin chat 16:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got nothing against multiple animals in one image, but at that size I think it's too small to start chopping it up into four. The 30px version for |small=yes (is that the code?) is basically unrecognizable. I think an invertebrate from one of the taxa not covered by another project is the best option. Alternatively we might have a scene with several taxa in it, e.g. a benthic scene with fish, corals, sponges etc. Richard001 (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About handicap principle

Could you please explain your inclusion of the Potlatch and Penis links in the see also section ? I am failing to comprehend how they relate to the subject at hand. --Mad Tinman T C 19:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The Potlatch effect is briefly described in The God Delusion, where chiefs of rival groups wage wars of generosity by hosting great feasts, often bankrupting themselves in the process. The penis, specifically its non-erect normal state, was offered by Dawkins in The Selfish Gene as an example of a possible case of the handicap principle in human biology. Richard001 (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless the articles clearly relate to the handicap principle, then there seems little value in sending readers to them. The potlatch article does appear relevant, but is already linked to earlier in the article so doesn't need to appear in the See also section. The penis article (later replaced by erection) doesn't discuss the principle and therefore doesn't seem relevant. I've removed both links. You could certainly link to penis or erection from within a part of the text explaining the context.-gadfium 18:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Book title redirects

I answered your question from January in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Books#Book title redirects. I hope this helps. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Assessments

You're quite right about the arthropod article. Not sure what I was thinking there, definitely not an A-Class. Pity though, it could be easily. IronChris | (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cult of the Amateur

Why do you insist that a redirect should be deleted? If the book is notable, then create the stub for it. In the absence of that, a redirect makes sense for those who search for the (notable) book and get to read about its author in the meantime. --ZimZalaBim talk 04:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] genetics project

Hello Richard, I see you are keen on starting a genetics project, have you seen WP:MEDGENP? Currently ticking along but I have suggested expanding the project on it's talk page recently since it has a few contributors, but needs more to be fully active. After looking at all the various definitions of genetics / (human/ medical/ standard) medical genetics does cover a lot of the material anyway, so seems a good place to work from towards a full genetics project... please feel free to add any thoughts to he project's talk page ... oh and keep up the good work :) Leevanjackson (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I had forgotten about the medical genetics project, actually. A genetics project would be a great bridge between medical genetics and general biology. Richard001 (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus sought for spinout articles

Your contributions are sought at WT:FICT#Guidelines and consensus, to try to determine whether the inclusion of spinout articles without real-world coverage has consensus support. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Italics

Thanks for the reminder, Richard. I'm always learning! AC+79 3888 (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Hydrostatic Skeleton

Hi Richard, since you put it that way, its virtually impossible to disagree. As you are familiar with the working habits of undergrads, time is always in short supply. Nonetheless I will attempt to revise the input on that topic at a later time as advised. Also the addition to the Cladophora article was in my own words. I was looking through article while formulating study notes and lecture summaries and paraphrased an interesting bit of information in one of my prac manuals. Unfortunately I couldnt find the reference and just moved on. Not too sure if its the work of one of my lecturers or what but the words are mine. Speaking of which, a majority of the botany articles could use vast improvement in terms of subject material. Anyway i digress, thanks for the tip! (Edebraux (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Re: Uploaded Images

err ... thanks for your (rather confusing) message Richard (001). I'm not sure if it was pitched as a general castigation of my contributions, or a back-handed compliment thereof, or even somewhere in between. Anyway, I'm rather busy IRL and don't have too much time to shift those images to Commons right now, but feel free to do so yourself. After all, this is a wiki, and if you perceive a problem, then you're welcome to fix it. --Cactus.man ✍ 23:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cut & paste

Hi Richard,

As you know, I am expanding the Infanticide article. I will continue to expand it according to my sources. There is a kilobytes limit in Wikipedia however. There's also that rule: to avoid content fork. Since there's already a hatnote in the Infanticide article referring to the Animal infanticide article, I'd like to cut and paste the whole section of animal infanticide into that article. But you are more familiar with the subject of infanticide among animals than me. Would you like to do the cutting & pasting? I still plan to add about 50 more kilobytes of info in the Infanticide article. Therefore sooner or later, per WP policies, any editor will do the splitting anyway.

Regards,

Cesar Tort 17:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need some help with my Wiki

Hello,

I'm totally lost! I have to find out how to create a wiki in a way that only certain users can access and/or edit an article. I have been trying to figure this out for over 3 weeks. I really would appreciate your help. Can you help me please?

Thank you.

Rantrom 01:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no experience with creating wikis. You may want to ask elsewhere, such as Wikipedia:Help desk. That's probably not the best place either, but they should be able to tell you where to go if nothing else. Richard001 (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Theory of Island Biogeography

The reason I reverted to the redirect to Island biogeography was because it had been that way with no comment since July 2006. You are correct that there is no speedy criteria that fit; that's why I removed the speedy tag. ... discospinster talk 15:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reply re. Price of petroleum/to do

What I meant was that the article should discuss the link between the price of petroluem and the effect on inflation as well the link between stagflation rather than just have a link in the see also section or captions. I will get around to it after I find some references. Sorry for the not being clearer, does that make sense? - Shiftchange (talk) 07:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Genetics proposal

FYI, people are discussing the idea of a Wikiproject Genetics here: WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Genetics. It'd be great to hear you thoughts on the points brought up. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 22:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)