User talk:Snowmanradio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  1. 1 December 2005 – December 2006
  2. December 2006 – February 2007
  3. February 2007 – July 2007
  4. July 2007 – November 2007
  5. November 2007 – January 2008
  6. January 2008 – 27 March 2008

Contents

[edit] Helpful links

If you need help, check out Getting Help below, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Wikisigbutton.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing!
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

[edit] Coventry project

There appears to be a problem with the Coventry project as the statistics are not been generated correctly, left an empty table on 22 March. Some of the categories also appear to be red-linked now so this may be the problem or it could be the new bot code. Any ideas what has happened? Keith D (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you listed the project as Coventry-related. I changed this to WikiProject Coventry, for consistency with all the other pages. It was probably a run with Coventry-related, but now it runs with WikiProject Coventry. I think that it is ok. If there are any category remnants left of Coventry-related, they need to be removed by deletion. Snowman (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mauritius Parakeet

I have racked up a taxonomy section; it can be left with brackets in the lists. The "new" specimen would allow to falsify the subspecies hypothesis if it is from Réunion. If it's too close genetically to historic skins of Mauritius parakeets one cannot tell whether the skin is form Réunion and they were subspecies, or whether the skin is from Mauritius.

So until the DNA data is theree and possibly even afterwards the choice is really dependent on whether one lumps or splits "almost-species" in general. But Wikipedia does not do either - we have redirects ;-) (I added the redirect for Psittacula eques echo which I think was the only one stil missing.

In any case, we now have an authoritative ref for both species and subspecies status. That should satisfy everyone. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, someone has recently put an image of a female Echo on flickr with a free copyright, so I have used it in the infobox. There are male Echo images, but they are copyrighted. Thanks for helping with the classification. Snowman (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Agapornis

(Nice Psittacula photo!)

Well, preliminarily - I have not checked all the info there is (one paper seems to elude my attempts to find it):

The best guess is that Agapornis would form a distinct lineage with Loriculus. And what else? Micropsitta perhaps? Not Forpus, as it seems, but these are so distinct among the Neotropical guys that I'd think a hypothetical clade of short-tailed mini-parrots needs to be explicitly refuted. (I have not read all research; there may be one paper that actually checks for it)

In any case, there is amazingly little work being done on the issue. This Indonesian(?) guy(?) Dwi Astuti seems to be one of the hottest names around; I have seen most of the published work and Astuti's is far more in-depth than usual.

Systematically, the best way to deal with it seems to take the entire living diversity in a family (similar to what's being done with pigeons, doves, dodos) Psittacidae. Subfamilies would be Nestorinae, Cacatuinae, perhaps Loriinae and Arinae but this requires in-depth study. Because where you draw the cutoff point is crucial - it may be that it is better to have a HUGE number of subfamilies, basically make every major lineage of psittacines one. Or there may be a clear ecomorphological break between the basal and the advanced Psittacidae, in which case one would want to draw the line there and treat the lesser groupings as tribes.

What is clear is that we need the family rank to accomodate those prehistoric "proto-parrots", or better "para-parrots" as these were not very much like parrots at all - Pseudasturidae etc. Whereas the living parrots, lories, cockatoos and nestors all share highly characteristic apomorphies and as a whole stand apart from their Paleogene relatives.

The names Loriculini and Loriculinae are available for the (to be verified but probable) clade containing Agapornis. That genus is not very close to Loriculus, but still they consistently group, whereas their closest relatives switch merrily depending on how you analyze the same data. But they seem to be part of a out-of-Melanesia radiation which also brought about any or all of Aprosmictus, Psittrichas and Lorius.

If one says "Lorini is in Psittacinae", one would almost certainly have to say "Agapornis is in Loriculini in Psittacinae". But if one says "Arinae are very close relatives of Psittacinae", the question whether Loriculini or Loriculinae should be used cannot (I think) be answered at present.

(There may be an easy preliminary solution to Psittaciformes systematics which requires little change, accomodates about any conceivable future change easily, and is very nice insofar that anyone can then tell the affiliations of a psittaciform at a single glance: draw the line where the Dyck texture evolved, and use Cacatuinae and Nestorinae, and Psittacinae contianing Loriini, Arini, Loriculini, Psittacini, etc. The references would be

  • HBW as baseline
  • de Kloet & de Kloet (2005), updating the nestors to a very distinct lineage, part of the initial radiation and thus on equal rank with the cockatoos
  • Waterhouse (2006), justifying that unlike in HBW all living Psittaciformes are placed in a single family.

But I have yet to ponder over this for some time.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I am going to think about that for some time too. Snowman (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot - Lilian's Lovebird - but I see you already figured that one out. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polytelini

Briefly, the group of large parakeets/smallish long-tailed parrots that inhabit Wallacea and the surrounding regions (like Australia). Basically as it says in Polytelis - they are part of an ill-defined group that also includes Psittaculini and Platycercini. Aprosmictus and Alisterus for example would also seem to belong there, but Tanygnathus is already closer to Psittacula. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No user page

Most IP pages do not have user pages - and few even have talk pages. I normally move any discussion directed to me to the user talk page of the user involved so that I can find it again. This is a dial up and the specific IP address changes frequently, and is shared by many other users. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pelican

I think its a virtually full breeding plumage Pacific subspecies Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis californicus. I didn't recognise it, but it looks spot on with David Sibley's picture. See this and this. Jimfbleak (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aviculture

Hi Snowmanradio, I'm a pigeon fancier from Rochester, Michigan in the United States. I'm very interested in working on filling out the aviculture info on Wikipedia whether that be as a subproject or as a task force. User:Sting_au is also interested in filling out the aviculture articles. Just thought you'd like to know that there are other folks here who think that Aviculture does deserve a subproject of its own. --OnorioCatenacci (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can register an interest at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Aviculture and if there is enough interest an aviculture article can be started. Snowman (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I have registered my interest. Since you seem to be much more wiki-knowledgeable than am I, what level of interest is needed to start? --OnorioCatenacci (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Five or more people. Snowman (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mystery bird

It's a Buff-necked Ibis Theristicus caudatus, Jimfbleak (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Black-faced Ibis looks better Jimfbleak (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I guess you are still not speaking to me. That's fine, but really you could have just told me that I uploaded the wrong size image. Anyway I fixed it now, how do I get that notice removed, so it doesn't get deleted. Image:Vera caspary.jpg EraserGirl (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that is will need to be deleted, because it is still in the file history. Snowman (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So asking me to fix it was just an exercise? I can add the new one as a new file and detach the old one from the article and then when it gets deleted it won't matter. EraserGirl (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you gave a new fair use image a different name, the new one could be used on the page and the old one will be removed behind the scenes. Snowman (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was obtuse, that was exactly what I proposed. EraserGirl (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you did suggest it; I was just repeating it in my own words for clarity. Snowman (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • why the repeat warning? EraserGirl (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC) oop. it was a duplicate warning for something else. my bad. mea culpa EraserGirl (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ID

I've seen the pic, Don't know offhand, but I'll look in my books later. It looks like a cardinal or grosbeak of some sort, pity we don't know where it's from. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my first thought was Red-capped Cardinal, but that has white underparts and no crest, and I've no source with Red-crested. Jimfbleak (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a wiki page with references for the Red-crested one. Snowman (talk) 10:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Link

If I add content to a subject and back it up with a source how is that any different than something added by someone else doing the exact same thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chet Womach (talk • contribs) 16:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Was there a problem? Snowman (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Agapornis revisited

Just to let you know, a fossil Agapornis was some years ago found in a Miocene deposit of South Africa. Other specimens were found in younger strata. It's nothing earth-shaking, the molecular data plus the fossil record of parrots in general would suggest that they were there by then. I'll try to get some more data on it and eventually put it up in the article. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As there are nine species of Agapornis, these details will make some difference to the wiki content of the order of parrots, about 330 - 350 species. There are taxonomic problems everywhere, even for the Little Penguin subspecies, and the Penguin order only has about 23 species. I would have thought that all these difficulties would have been sorted out from DNA evidence. Snowman (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to comment on WP:IFD

In regards to your comment on Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_April_13#Image:Sts107_crew_faces.jpg, the template ({{ncd}}) requires that all of the conditions of WP:CSD#I8 be met, and there are quite a few. The biggest is that the image on commons be bit-for-bit identical. Thank you for your interest in the process. ~ BigrTex 16:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin's Finches

I've nothing that covers the Galapagos for this family - sorry Jimfbleak (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult. I might ask WP:Birds. Snowman (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Black Cockatoo

Took me a while to figure out how to reply to your message, haha. I'm just writing an small article about the Northen Brushtail Possum at the moment. Thanks for the compliment and the links :) I will edit my user page another day as it's getting late. --Scarlet23 (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no hurry to write on your user page. I plan to have a look at the Possum page soon. Snowman (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Evans

I don't know who does the assessments, but I think it's spiffy.

[edit] Blue-eared Lory

The image you got from Flickr for this article, are you sure of that ID? Given the location of the photographer I think that Crimson Rosella is a much stronger candidate, especially as the photographer in question has some pictures of that species from the same location. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted. I have re-uploaded the image with a correct file name and the old one will be deleted after a day or two. Snowman (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Conures

Snowmanradio, you removed two links from the Conures section of Wikipedia without notifying me, or sharing your concerns. If you would have come to me, I would have told you that the links you removed are not spam. Shameless advertising is spam, but the websites I posted are not. They are two websites that specialize in Parrots, one directly specializes in Conures. Both websites have actively rescued parrots, raised money for the benefit of parrot's world wide, and taught many people many new and interesting things about birds. If you need a third party back up or any such reference, I will be happy to assist you. Might I suggest googling XOParrots and seeing what it's all about? Lexhatesyou (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather anecdotal I thought. Snowman (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anna May Wong

Shall I just wait until you are finished? I keep running into edit conflicts when I try to paste in my changes.EraserGirl (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I have finished there now. Snowman (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Well you are just gonna have to come back as soon as I mess around.EraserGirl (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

I tend to look up people who edit pages I create (like the Higgs Report) because I'm always surprised that anyone looks at this stuff. But I just wanted to say, I'm pinching one of your useboxes - the Radio 4 one, which is v. funny! Wikidea 11:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Penguin" ref format

In my sandbox I recently changed the ref format used on the Penguin article: from naming the author and date in parentheses inline to the footnote method. Because of the way the article has been written, some of the references to the books have been retained, but otherwise I think its tidier...any comments? --Red Sunset 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Brill. Snowman (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Suggestion

Consider the following paragraph from the artice--"Coombs test":

"The direct Coombs test is used to detect red blood cells sensitized with IgG alloantibody, IgG autoantibody, and complement proteins. It detects antibodies bound to the surface of red blood cells in vivo. The red blood cells (RBCs) are washed (removing the patient's own plasma) and then incubated with antihuman globulin (also known as "Coombs reagent"). If this produces agglutination of the RBCs, the direct Coombs test is positive."

I think it's inappropriate to say that RBCs get sensitized by antibodies, rather it's the other way round, meaning, RBCs can sensitize some component of the immune system leading to production of IgM/IgG that gets bound to the RBC surface. Since, it'd be fairly complex to express this principle, and somewhat even beyond the scope of this article, I suggest the following alternative to the above paragraph"

The direct Coombs test is used to detect antibodies or complement proteins bound to the surface of red blood cells in vivo. The antibodies could be IgG allo- or autoantibodies. The red blood cells (RBCs) are washed (removing the patient's own plasma) and then incubated with antihuman globulin (also known as "Coombs reagent"). If this produces agglutination of the RBCs, the direct Coombs test is positive.

Or more simply, sensitized with could be substituted by primed with.

Do let me know what you think.

Ketan Panchal, MBBS (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply and comments on "Coombs test" talk page. Snowman (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Larkin

Over the last two days I have considerably increased the "Philip Larkin" entry, trying to add a factual backbone. Afterwards I added the following on the "talk page":

"Although I've added quite a lot of material, I haven't added any references yet. I've noted the sentence: WP:Verifiability says: All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable, published source. Every thing I've added - I think - is a firm fact to be found in the Motion biog, the Letters and the Bradford book, and I really can't imagine it being challenged. But I'm a "Newbie" so please help me out if there's anything you think I need to give a direct reference to. Almost-instinct 09:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)"

I see that you have added a template saying that things in the article need verifying. Please could you tell me which items these are? Everything I added is sourced from the standard published works on Larkin [Motion, Thwaite, Bradford] so I will happy to provide page numbers for anything of mine that you think seems contentious. Please advise. Yours Almost-instinct 22:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is relatively few inline citations, which more directly verify facts. I have now added a better header banner to make this point more clearly, which contains some links to pages about inline citations. Snowman (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I've had a look through the various structures for citing suggested by the articles the new template links to, and compared it with how the Larkin notes are currently arranged. I've added a couple of citations: could you glance over them and check that I'm doing them in the appropriate manner? Then I'll plough on. Almost-instinct 13:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Penguin images

Regarding use of penguin images from my website photovolcanica.com (as questioned in wikiproject birds talk). See my response - images freely available for wikipedia use. Several more penguin trips planned this year so will be more pictures to come (African Penguin page is currently in preparation). RRvolcanica (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed your "Yellow-eyed Penguin" pictures which will be greatly appreciated. I have put the best of what I can find from flickr (with free copyright) and wiki commons on the "Penguin" page in genuses, as well as many more on species and genus pages. There are many more great images on your website to search through, and I will look for penguins (including juveniles) going about their daily lives - swimming, walking, feeding, on nests, their eggs, in burrows, feeding little chicks and big chicks, as well as views of the terrain where they live, and perhaps some of the dangers they face. I hope to add many images from your website to these popular wiki pages and also many more to the wiki commons for anyone to see and use. It might take several weeks. It is a regulation that each image has a link to your website to show its source, and I hope the url locations will be stable for some years to come. There might be an official way of informing the wiki that you are giving permission for your images to be released to the wiki with an appropriate copyright. Snowman (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad you like so many of the images. I will look into officially making them available as soon as possible. Am actually about to head off to Krakatau volcano so will have to wait for a couple of weeks unless i can find quick way of making available.. 145.64.134.234 (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be easier if you logged onto the wiki, so that you can sign your edits with your wiki-name. Have a nice time; and watch out for red-hot rocks flying out newly active volcanoes. You can upload images to wikicommons (or the en wiki) from anywhere in the world, if they are your own work. I think that I must wait for official confirmation of the copyright permission before uploading any of your images from your webiste, because they will probably be deleted owing to perceived copyright problems. I can wait a few weeks, if it takes that long, or longer for the copyright permission. I plan to add some relevant external links from the wiki penguin pages to your website soon. Someone has added some info on image copyright on the WP Bird talk page.Snowman (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging

User:ShepBot has started tagging Warwickshire articles for you. I just did the basic first level cats and only came up with 600 some to tag. If you have other cats within Warwickshire you would like done just drop me a note. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Splendid, I will think about any other cats that may need tags. Snowman (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The categories aren't in your message? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Nvm there they are. I'll do it right now. lol §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The typo is now fixed. Snowman (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
311 skipped(already tagged) 38 edits(tag added). Task complete. Any others let me know! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I did, only recursive available in Category:Towns in Warwickshire I believe. And I won't touch biographies with a bot too messy. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
That is correct. Snowman (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I got every article. Most were alrady tagged. Am I missing something? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've gotta go now. I may be back later. Hope to get this sorted out tomorrow by the latest. Cheers. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I do not know how Warwick University pages got tagged. Snowman (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
They were a subcat of Towns in Warwickshire, which had the subcat:Warwick, under which was: University of Warwick. If you want the school ones reverted it it wouldbe an easy fix. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I have just changed the cats, U of W is in Coventry and not Warwickshire. Can only the U of W ones be reverted? and replaced with WikiProject Coventry. Snowman (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure thing. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Should be fixed? I really have homework now and have to unglue myself from the screen. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Snowman (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it be okay if I tagged all articles in Category:Warwickshire geography stubs with {{WikiProject Warwickshire|class=Stub|importance=|auto=yes}}. Also, are there any other Warwickshire stub cats I could parse? Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Snowman (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have had a quick look at the cat containing over 200 pages. I think it will be ok to insure that there is a WP Warwickshire banner on the talk pages. Many will already have the banner added. Snowman (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Small cat...oh well. 118 or so tagged as stubs. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. 27 new ones and the rest had stub class added. Snowman (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manfromcov

Would you please review all of the articles created by Manfromcov - eight so far. See User talk:RHaworth#Coventry places. I felt it appropriate to redirect five of them but they need to be reviewed by someone who has actually been there! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, there is quite a lot of work to tidy up. I think that he had made a good start on the Bannerbrook Park page, which was a page I was considering starting as well. It might take a week or more to sort it out and do the liaison work. Snowman (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] High Windows

"High Windows" links to the book, "High Windows (poem)" to the poem. With The Whitsun Wedding the book is called "The Whitsun Weddings (book)" and the poem "The Whitsun Weddings (poem)". So to be uniform "High Windows" should be renamed "High Windows (book)". I had a look at how to do this but felt a little confused by the instructions, and so, not wanting to get the request wrong, thought I would ask you if you would do it for me. Agreement for this is on the 'Talk:High Windows". Thank you, Almost-instinct 16:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Witsun Weddings (book)" could be renamed "The Witsun Weddings", without causing any confusion. I have added a disambig page for "High Windows". Snowman (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to change The Whitsun Weddings (book) to just The Whitsun Weddings, could it be done I add the 30 odd links on the List of Poems? Thanks! Almost-instinct 23:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It is moved. But there is no need to repeat links on the list of poems. Snowman (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aviculture Editing

I am unfamiliar with editing and don't feel qualified. You seem well-skilled and very qualified. I am disturbed by many instances of self-promotion in some of the Aviculture articles. They seem to be in violation of Wikipedia's policies as noted below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

Links normally to be avoided

  1. Links mainly intended to promote a website. See External link spamming.
  2. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.

Advertising and conflicts of interest Shortcut: WP:EL#ADV

Main articles: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam

Due to the rising prominence of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. Note that since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links may not alter search engine rankings.

How can these issues be addressed? I don't want to do something wrong.

I would appreciate contact from you or other knowledgeable editors.

Sally Forth (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I often delete spam links and add an appropriate edit summary. If I am not sure if it is an information site or an advertising site, then I might ask someone else or return after a day or two to see if someone else has deleted it. Some editors add a lot of spam links and they have to be reported and blocked. Snowman (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Italics vs quotation marks

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) states that italics should be used for Long or epic poems, and double quotation marks for the titles of shorter works. In the "Works" section of Larkin's page, all of his poems are listed using quotation marks, so from your recent edits, do you think that some on the list fall into the "Long or epic" category and therefore should be italicised? --Red Sunset 19:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. Italics for poem changed back to inverted commas. Snowman (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Warwickshire

Hi, I noticed your comment on WT:AWB about adding {{WikiProject Warwickshire|class= |importance=}} to articles in the Warwickshire categories. If you are interested, I can get my bot to do something similar and automatically assess articles in Category:Unassessed_WikiProject_Warwickshire_articles by looking at the assessments other projects have given them. As quite a few of the articles have an overlap, I was wondering whether this would be of some use to the project? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 13:54, May 26, 2008 (UTC)

I think that it would be ok for the class, but not the importance. Importance sometimes varies because of the differing relevance of the topic of the article to different WikiProjects. As long as the bot does not break anything, then run it here. Snowman (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The bot only does class, not importance. The bot has been well tested, passed BRFA and has been doing the same thing for WP:INDIA all day. See its contribs log for proof. If you want this done, it may have to wait a day or so, as the India tagging needs to be finished, and WP:ECU also asked if this could be done first; I will post a note on the project talk page when I start tagging. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 14:23, May 26, 2008 (UTC)
Small delay is not a problem. Can you also do the Unassessed WikiProject Coventry articles? Snowman (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure! It's what my bot was designed to do! I'll start making a list. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 14:33, May 26, 2008 (UTC)
I've set my bot to do all the Warwickshire articles now. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:15, May 27, 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, bot process terminated. I have absolutely no idea why other articles found their way into the list. I fed Category:Unassessed WikiProject Warwickshire articles into AWB and for some reason it generated a list 2000+ pages long. I will reactivate the bot in semi-auto mode for a while to make sure that things don't go weird again. Sorry about that, it must have picked up the parent categories for some odd reason. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 19:03, May 27, 2008 (UTC)
They will need undoing of course. Snowman (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the list of pages that should have been tagged, I won't restart until I've figured out why this has happened. It definitely shouldn't have been doing others. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 19:07, May 27, 2008 (UTC)
What about the list it just did. Can it undo? Snowman (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This is getting very weird. I have just checked a few of the taggings, and as far as I can see, all the pages that it tagged were in Category:Unassessed_WikiProject_Warwickshire_articles at the time of tagging. Can you point me to a page that it specifically should not have tagged? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 19:14, May 27, 2008 (UTC)
Actually, due to most of the articles being tagged, the list above is not valid, there would have been far more pages in the category when the run started. I can see no pages that it tagged that were not in Category:Unassessed_WikiProject_Warwickshire_articles when it started. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 19:20, May 27, 2008 (UTC)
It is difficult to say now, because all the lists have been updated. But I have looked at a few likely ones and they were processed ok. Snowman (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Cat structure looks fine; all of the taggings that I checked looked fine (i.e. the bot addded a class from other templates where there wasn't one before). Everything seems fine now. Want me to restart the process? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 21:04, May 27, 2008 (UTC)
ok for bot to continue to put a class in where there is already a WP Warwickshire banner. Please check the structure of the WP Coventry cats prior to bot run for WP Coventry. Snowman (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I will run a thorough check on the cat structure before running. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 21:11, May 27, 2008 (UTC)
WP COVENTRY cat structure looks fine, only ~45 articles to check, this'll be done in no time. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 21:25, May 27, 2008 (UTC)
ok. It is a small project, and there are also 100s of pages football players that are within the category substructure but not with the WP banner. No more pages need adding to the WP at the moment. Might be a football task force one day. Snowman (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Y Done: Both the Warwickshire and Coventry ones. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 21:34, May 27, 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Snowman (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] African Penguin page complete

Hi Snowmanradio. The African Penguin page on Photovolcanica.com is now complete (and is the first penguin page with extensive scientific referencing as i hope to eventually introduce to all the pages). Think you may like it - have a look when you have time (critical comment welcome).... Have also added distribution maps to all the other penguin pages that are presently online to make them complete. Krakatau is in processing at the moment and should be online sometime this week... RRvolcanica (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance

The article blood donation has been nominated for good article candidacy. I have reviewed the article, but would very much like you to have a quick check for major inaccuracies and omissions. I'm also concerned that less than ideal sources have been used. JFW | T@lk 19:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not "on home ground" with blood donation, but I might be able to see where it can be improved. It looks like the references need a lot of work. Snowman (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I'll be off Wiki for a bit. Somedumbyankee has hinted that he has done as much as he can. Is there any chance you could review the improvements, and decide whether it is indeed a good article? If not, it might improve after a spell on WP:MCOTW or somesuch. JFW | T@lk 19:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope that you can carry the baton again soon. Snowman (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage

Oh, that's very odd as I use Firefox as well (3 RC1 though). What exactly is wrong with the rendering? Thanks for pointing it out. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:56, June 7, 2008 (UTC)

That was most certainly not intentional. I'll work on fixing it; thanks for pointing it out. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 10:47, June 8, 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My userpage

Hi, yes, someone wrote stuff on my userpage. I have never got round to putting anything more relevant up there since I don't do much here - just roam around looking up things I am interested in and occasionally copy-editing :-). Will try to do something sensible soon. Rachel Pearce (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)