Hello, Couiros22, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
Please remember to
sign your messages on
talk pages by typing four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome! I see that you have been here for near unto a year and nobody has welcomed you. Well, belated welcome. --
Bejnar (
talk)
19:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
In the Mountain Infobox, latitude and longitude are formatted like this:
Good luck with more Pyrenees! -- Bejnar ( talk) 19:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Excellent new article! This article is very good for a new article by new editors. Mr. Guye ( talk) 15:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks for creating La Maladeta, Couiros22!
Wikipedia editor Mr. Guye just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Good job. This article is now reviewed.
To reply, leave a comment on Mr. Guye's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Wikipedia.
I noticed an article you worked on. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:
This applies to infoboxes, too.
The animals are all listed in the See also section, so best there and not twice.
Thanks, and my best wishes.
Tony (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bay of Txingudi, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://wikipedia.orange.fr/wiki/Baie_de_Chingoudy.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot ( talk) 13:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for starting Cotentin Donkey. I see you've made a number of other useful articles in a similar way. So please forgive me for asking you to do things a bit differently:
If you have questions or need advice, please feel free to ask. Please don't let my suggestions above prevent you from enjoying being an editor here. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 13:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi again! You are doing a great job creating useful articles. But I'm going to ask you again to slow down a bit and start being a lot more careful. You are randomly copying stuff both from French Wikipedia and now from within this one too without any acknowledgement, and often without making the obvious basic changes that are needed. Please note carefully:
and (this is just a warning, not a threat):
I'm still available to answer questions, feel free to ask at any time. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 13:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Forêt de Tronçais, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Primary, Deadwood and Paris basin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Per this source I think your Corse horse is actually the Corsican horse may want to look into that and move the article. BTW, in the future, maybe do more than create a one-sentence stub with no project tag, we will not find it to improve it. Montanabw (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lac de Bort-les-Orgues, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Auvergne. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dongola (Horse), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Italian-Abyssinian War. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Hallo, I've come across a few of your new French mountains while stub-sorting. A few comments:
Thanks. Pam D 14:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pardusco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tallman. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi there; I see you've been fixing the categories of some New Zealand birds to specify they are only found on the South Island. Unfortunately the category "Birds of South Island" is incorrect. The name of the island is "the South Island", always written with a definite article – yes, it's a strange usage. Would you be able, please, to correct the category in each of the articles you've changed? Many thanks. Giantflightlessbirds ( talk) 12:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, for Asian, European and African species, just the continent category please. I know there are country cats out there, but they should be removed, not more added, thanks Jimfbleak ( talk) 17:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jimfbleak ( talk) 13:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Please take heed of the formal warning above, and seek consensus. The best place for a wider discussion might be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds, although I can't see how you can possibly justify removing the Birds of Europe category from relevant species pages anyway. Also, please give an edit summary for your edits. Jimfbleak ( talk) 13:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Example:
Hi Couiros22,
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I am responding to a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and have looked at your recent edit history in detail. Would you please undertake to follow WP:BRD - that when an editor reverts you, that you do not attempt to make the same change again without consensus?
This is a collaborative project and you will not get far if you follow your current approach. Please edit according to established norms and consensus, discussing as appropriate with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds. I also recommend that you work with experienced editors like Jimfbleak, rather than against them.
Best regards — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Birds of the Andes. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Birds of the Himalayas. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Birds of the Himalayas – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Passengerpigeon ( talk) 14:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Birds of the Andes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jimfbleak ( talk) 14:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Couiros22. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that you've made some changes to the categories that Common hill myna belongs in. I've just started dealing with the issues of categories and so I've got a few questions about the changes that you have made, some of which are general in nature, some specific
1) - If a bird is present throughout most of Southeast Asia, then "birds of South East Asia" should be used - however, if the bird has a much more localized range, then individual countries cats should apply - e.g. birds of Malesia, birds of Indonesia, birds of Borneo, or even "Birds of Brunei" if the bird is endemic or only restricted to the north of the island (to which another category 'birds of East Malaysia' could also be added to).
This was discussed on the Project birds talk page.
2) - I decided up until now to exclude cats. of areas where the bird has been introduced, given I felt many bird species tend to be "extirpated" from their original geographical zones of predilection. Although I agree that this is more discussible.
3) - As stated above, if the bird is restricted to Hainan or equally to most southern parts China, then "Birds of Hainan" is suitable (perhaps a third category eg. "birds of South China" should also be added). If the bird is present throughout most of the country then only "Birds of China" is necessary.
4) The starling category was +/- empty; therefore I decided to include only the names of some of the most common species. -- Couiros22 ( talk) 11:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
1) It was earlier suggested for animals species in general:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds&diff=prev&oldid=743635920 which was later followed up here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_68#Proposals.3F
as a reminder: - If a bird is present throughout most of Asia, then there isn't any need to refine into subcategories (or to list every single country - there would be a lot of them) - if a bird has a more localized range of presence within a larger geographical cat. then relevant subcategories should apply (e.g. if a bird is present in only India, then "birds of India" rather than "birds of South Asia") - one exception: eg. if a bird is sparsely present throughout East Asia yet notably present in Korea (more frequent than anywhere else) then one should use both categories: "Birds of East Asia" to indicate that the bird is frequent throughout all or most of the sub-continent and 'birds of Korea' to highlight the fact that the bird is prominently found in Korea.
- If a bird is present in southern China only, then, 'birds of South China' would be more relevant than 'birds of China', given the latter would mislead the user into thinking the bird is found throughout the whole country. - If a user knows a bird is local/endemic to their country, then why should this pose a problem?
2) This is still a matter of debate, but given the very rare amount of bird species to which this matter is an issue, then I think it is not of the utmost importance for the time being.
3) The Birdlife International website is a sound source and also seems to match the areas of repartition from the IOC World Bird List 99% of the time...
If a bird is present throughout most of China, then 'birds of China', if not then sub cats should apply ; only use any category when then bird has a prominent or outstanding presence within that area and compared to its neighboring areas.
4) As the category was almost empty I decided to include only the more common ones & those that are easy to remember - more can be added later (myna not being a true starling either). Also due to the fact that 'starling' category being a literary definition, as opposed to "sturnidae", where there can be found every scientific species of starling. -- Couiros22 ( talk) 16:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Jeesh, guys. I strongly recommend either of you does go and start an RFC on some or all of these, if there's such a perceived lack of clear guidelines. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 13:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- there would be an excessively high amount for many of them - some birds are much more common than others within the geographical division - on average (mostly for users acquainted to the topic but equally for users of any level), it is very relevant, academic and without risk to refine bird species' areas of presence as much as possible
"ARE YOU ACTUALLY SERIOUS ABOUT GETTING ME TO UNDERSTAND YOUR CASE?" Of course I am; even though I am finding it somewhat difficult for you to understand my reasoning, never did I suggest you were stupid or that I wished to argue with you. Therefore I will go through your initial method draft and suggest reformation when necessary.
1) "That geographic categorisation of species should be clearly explained in the category pages." perhaps, OK
2) "That the level at which the species are found should be, unless there is good reason, and that reason is explained on the category pages, all at the same level. This is so that the reader does not need to hunt through several pages of categories in order to find what they need." Simplicity, for this case, isn't the most relevant priority; furthermore it makes sense to list birds' levels of repartition simply according to their most reflected range of presence (retrievable from the BirdLife Int. site), rather than by dividing them into separate country categories, as this would be obfuscating for the reader; moreover while consulting the bird entries of a given country, they would not be able to distinguish which birds are specifically native to that area as opposed to those generally present throughout a much wider area (e.g. across the whole sub-continent). The latter part of the sentence is void given the user would have to look through the same amount of entries and in the vast majority of cases know the name of the bird and search it via the search box anyway.
3) "What these levels are need not be fixed, but they need to be self-consistent - in other words do not start categorising species until all subcategories are sorted out (this is so the reader is not left guessing in which category there animal might be found). Given that countries have already been set up and that these are simple concepts for the reader (as opposed to ecogeographical zones)." Countries may sometimes be further divided into smaller areas (for large states, e.g. USA or Australia, or when distinct areas of occurrence are found there (e.g. 'birds of Bolivia' can further be divided into 'birds of the Bolivian Andes', 'birds of the Bolivian Amazon' and 'birds of the Gran Chaco'); similarly 'birds of Ecuador' can be refined into: Ecuadorian Andes, Amazon, Tumbes-Choco-Magdalena and Galapagos Islands). Birds solely native to those areas should be categorized accordingly rather than simply 'birds of Bolivia', which would lead the user to believe they are generally found across the whole country, rather than at local level.
4) "Thus the simplest method is to list all species by country only, unless there is good reason, and the reason is stated in the appropriate parent category article." see above
5) "All of the areas must be listed and be complete - in other words no areas are not included - otherwise the reader will go to that category and not find the animal that they are looking for." yes
6) "how many categories are displayed at the bottom of the page is relatively unimportant, however some species have near global distributions, in which case these creatures are not put into country categories and are instead put in the global or near global distribution category. If this becomes too full then this is subcategorised into the continents but no further." agreed ; see above
7) "creatures that are restricted to one or two countries may be broken down into one further subcategory, but again only with it made clear in the category article." birds are simply classified under both categories. If the bird is restricted to one country, then it is classified under "Endemic birds of...".
8) "Categories are listed on an article page in alphabetical order, this is the only objective system. Otherwise it makes it hard to find them - note the display of categories at the bottom of articles is more for the benefit of the editors than it is for the readers, though readers may find them useful also" But this is how categories are usually accessed.
9) "includes regular migrant birds and established introduced species" wintering birds are already listed separately under ("Vagrant birds of") ; introduced species will also later be added in the same way
10) "This is my proposed methodology based on the principles of a) what categorisation is used for b) self-consistent objective categorisation that is simple for the reader to follow c) acknowledging the underlying limitations in determining distributions of species." a) categories must be defined according to the broader project which they constitute, in this case an ornithological atlas b) simplicity is not an issue - see above c) for the ostensibility and elaborateness of the project it is better to not to restrain categories at country level only -- Couiros22 ( talk) 17:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Couiros22: Please don't remove tags from articles where you haven't fixed the tagged problem. In the Tit berrypecker article, you removed a tag asking for a reference for questioned information, but didn't provide any reference. (Here's the link to your change...) Please don't do that again! Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. MeegsC ( talk) 17:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Categorisation of birds by location". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 30 January 2017.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
15:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Categorisation of birds by location, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
20:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
You completely ignore the any discussion at the bird project about categories and just go your own way changing long-accepted categories to your own random system, which is largely useless for its intended purpose to help searchers. I wouldn't mind so much if your categories were correct, but they are not. I can't be bothered cleaning up all your mess, but I don't expect you to revert my edits where I do so without discussion.
Now, I've explained why you are wrong, and I'm going to restore the original status quo. If you think I'm wrong, please discuss before acting. Having seen how you ignore the opinions of others, it's more likely that you will just revert me again, in which case I'll take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring; don't say you haven't been warned Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
You keep insisting that I am wrong and offensive yet I've already justified myself many times on the talk pages - feel free to comment on those. I clearly don't wish to be considered like that given that's not my intention. For non-breeding ranges in general (wintering, summer etc.) I thought the default term was vagrant, so having found no other alternative I decided to stick to it, which does not strictly contradict its definition anyway. If such an amendment needs to be done then why not use the bot to revert to "wintering birds of" instead. But again, I see no real misconception the way things currently are. The northern wheatear, according to most major ornithological sources is holarctic, with more than just a small amount of birds in North America. Besides, the Siberian accentor also has a very limited amount of birds in Europe - yet why do you accept to include the latter as "birds of Europe"? So far, a huge amount of bird articles were categorized partially, vaguely or incorrectly, which I have now amended to a great extent (labeled "corrected bird range", among many others). Had you realized this, perhaps you would show a little more respect and recognition. -- Couiros22 ( talk) 19:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Couiros, I saw you removed that category from some articles, why? I think it is a pretty important category to keep? Cheers, Tisquesusa ( talk) 16:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
All the pages in the parent category are 'primates from South America' (hence, only the parent category should be listed as "primates of SA"). -- Couiros22 ( talk) 16:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I just made a few edits to articles about animals, removing some odd-looking code that I thought was redundant, and was stopping the articles from being alphabetized on the category page. Having looked at my edits via my Watchlist I see that you were the one that inserted the code in the first place. Apologies if I've misunderstood something. Feel free to revert my edits if you see fit, but could you please tell me what is the point of this coding? (and in future I'll leave it be.) nagual design 15:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Category:Megabovids of Africa, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Category:Mammals of Libya, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Category:Vagrant birds of Africa, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 09:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Why are you removing fish from [[Category:Freshwater fish of Australia]] without discussion, as you did for these fish: Queemsland lungfish, estuary perch, Macquarie perch, golden perch and Australian bass? If you do not provide an appropriate justification I will revert. - Nick Thorne talk 13:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Yet this is the way in which species within a single category are taxonomically grouped together into sub-cats - for clarity, relevance and often to reduce the large amount of entries. Even though this category does not have an excessive amount of entries, for standardization and to avoid obfuscation, I chose to make them only accessible from their taxonomical parent category. -- Couiros22 ( talk) 15:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Couiros22. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Category:Vagrant birds of Europe, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Category:Asian antelopes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Category:Birds of Bioko, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 07:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Category:Birds of the Miombo, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
This is why so many of us are getting frustrated with your categorization attempts. You start a job, and then get bored and go off to do something else. This category hasn't been completely filled; not even close. You've started, but left the bulk of work for someone else to do "someday". How does this help the readers? Answer: it doesn't. Why do you continue to do this?! MeegsC ( talk) 13:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
So you'll admit that a "breeding birds of Alaska" category will necessarily always be incomplete? MeegsC ( talk) 09:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Regarding edits such as this to Category:Birds of Australia - (1) What exactly does your text mean (i.e. what articles belong in the category with that text, but wouldn't without the text or vice versa)? (2) Did you discuss your text anywhere before adding it to the category pages? (3) If it applies to all animals-of-area categories then shouldn't it be explained on a guidance page somewhere and then the category page (just) contain a link to that guidance? (4) Have you recategorized any pages in line with (your understanding of) the new text? Please answer these questions before you add the text to any more category pages. DexDor (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I see you have been busy with birds, (etc.)..... I originally started some birds articles, (2006 and 2007, etc) & categories. Birds are so amazing, as are all creatures. I never got to Category:Birds of the Andes, but I wanted to. I didn't have the time (no tiempo) !!--- So, just saying hello from the hot AZ desert of SW Arizona, and the hot southwest of USA. I eventually saw thrushes, notably walking on the ground, between clumps of grasses (and occasionally perched). Here in southwest AZ, the cormorants are interesting, as well as the Ospreys, along the Colorado River. Also with the common kingfisher. I only saw your work because of my watchlist, and looked at the Birds of the Northern Andes. Good Work !! Mmcannis ( talk) 17:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, if you're changing categories, could you please mark your edits with an edit comment like "categories", and perhaps consider marking them as minor. Otherwise you waste other editors' time checking your work as unexplained activity. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 07:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Emblemaria piratula a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Pirate blenny. This is known as a " cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. William Avery ( talk) 14:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Couiros22, I don't doubt that your edits were made in good faith, but the edits were incorrect, and wrongly changed the leads of multiple articles. Please revert those edits. I already changed Synodus_intermedius - the title name should appear first in bold text (in bold italics for species) - and the common name following (in bold italics for species) as demonstrated at the article I just corrected. Also, do not change the category names to add the common name if a category is not available. Feel free to ping me if you have further questions. Thank you. Atsme 📞 📧 18:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Organisms. Stop edit-warring and making changes that obviously don't have consensus. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Couiros22, I'm reluctant to take this to WP:ANI, but you will soon force me. You just aren't listening to what people are saying.
All of these are clear in the guidelines and have been explained above by various editors. I'll give you one more change to revert your edits and seek consensus to move the articles. Peter coxhead ( talk) 12:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
If the article title is Common name then the article's first sentence should start withScientific name or common name is a...
If you want to use the common name instead of the scientific name as the title for an article currently titled with the scientific name, or vice versa, then either move the article (if the change is likely to be uncontroversial) or create a move request. Given that you seem to have difficulty with judging the likely reception of your changes so far, I very strongly recommend you stick to the move request path, at least for the time being. - Nick Thorne talk 11:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Common name (Scientific name) is a...
that would require every article to be moved to their common name
: Couiros22, you – and inadvertently others above – are confusing two possible meanings of "common name". At
WP:COMMONNAME, "common name" does not mean "English name", it means the most commonly recognized name, which to be used as the article title must meet all the criteria at
WP:AT including precision. The scientific name is often the common name, in this sense. To be clear: articles about organisms can only be at the English name if the English name meets all the criteria at WP:AT and there is consensus that this is so. Then, as
Nick Thorne says, the article begins with the title.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
08:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, @ Couros22:, I quickly checked your contributions and I see you are busily carrying on your merry way. If I see any further changes of articles to the effect that you change the first part of the lead from the article title to something else I will be taking you to AN/I. You've been told politely to cease and desist, but you are acting in classic IDHT fashion. It's now time to actually stop. Consider this your last and final warning. - Nick Thorne talk 10:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. See here -- Nick Thorne talk 15:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Your behaviour is currently being discussed at ANI and yet (rather than dealing with the concerns of other editors) you are making more problematic edits - e.g. this (with no edit summary) which removes the article from Category:Fish of Australia (although it didn't when you made that edit because you'd messed up the category structure with this earlier edit). Are you trying to get blocked? DexDor (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Diffusing categories is normal practice for large categories, otherwise we would we put every fish into Category:Fish. It would be too large, unworkable and useless. The same logic can be applied to any large category.
WP:SUBCAT says "Apart from certain exceptions an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it."
I'm not sure I can see what Couiros22 is doing wrong and he is attempting to explain the rationale for his edits.. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 12:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The distribution categories used for flora have been alluded to several times above. Please note that there is a well worked out system used for plants, described in great detail at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. For me, the problem with animals is the absence of an overall system, which leads to a lack of clarity as to what some categories mean, and inconsistent approaches to different groups. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Please first explain why many floral species of Europe are categorized under "flora of eastern/northern/southwestern... Europe", as opposed to simply under "Flora of Europe"."Why" is explained at the WGSRPD page I linked to. Peter coxhead ( talk)
Couiros22, Are you the same person as
User:Nono64 and
User:NotWith ?
DexDor
(talk)
05:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban
may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by first reading the
guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. |
Couiros22 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I do NOT possess multiple accounts ; what evidence is there for this ?
Decline reason:
Given the overlap in editing, this is not plausible. Yamla ( talk) 12:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Couiros22 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I do not understand your last comment. Which other accounts are you referring to and could you please give valid comparisons ? Couiros22 ( talk) 12:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only; this is not an unblock request. For evidence, see here. Yamla ( talk) 13:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@ Yamla:@ JamesBWatson:: I have C22 on my watchlist because of some recent interactions we have had, and I've commented on the recent ANI thread, but I have to say this sockpuppet block seems to come out of left field, and without a sockpuppet report that I can find, I tend to doubt it. I'm not sure what you are seeing on that interaction report aside from some strong correlation between Nono64 and Notwith, but I've looked pretty closely and I just don't see what you're identifying as clear evidence linking Couiros22 and those other two... Would you mind taking another look and making sure you are seeing what you think you are seeing? Neil916 ( Talk) 05:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Couiros22 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I still fail to understand. It appears that all three of us have indeed been actively contributing to the Animal project... yet these pages still represent little compared to the totality of our contributions and cannot suggest that we are the same user. Couiros22 ( talk) 13:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla ( talk) 23:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Here is a set of times attributable to many concurrent edits between
myself and user
Caftaric :
7 Jun 17:40, 11:11 ; 6 Jun 11:04 ; 27 May 18:53 ; 26 May 11:35 ; 14 May 17:12, 16:50
Yet how can these reasonably be possible if we are the same user ? --
Couiros22 (
talk)
18:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
@
Yamla: Would you please mind adding my name to
WP:SPI as well as those of all other alleged "sockpuppets" in question :
Caftaric,
Nono64,
NotWith,
Wwikix and
R567 ?
note : I've briefly investigated their contributions, which cannot be considered as detrimental either. --
Couiros22 (
talk)
07:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
No, given your concurrent edits were deliberately made ; mine weren't.
How can you make such silly and provocative accusations if you seemingly ignore what my edits actually consist of ?
This is fucked up. I can't say I'm especially sorry to see you blocked, as I have issues with the majority of your recent edits. But if you're going to be blocked, it should be based on your edits, with the possibility of you being unblocked if you agree to change your behavior, not because you've been mistakenly identified as a sock of another user, with no possibility of being unblocked unless you (falsely) admit to being a sock. I've been around long enough to see NotWith switch over to the Caftaric account (and briefly editing as R567, which was wrongly identified as a sock of Wwikix and blocked); the Nono64 account is before my time, but I've come across their edits and recognize their signature. There are numerous idiosyncrasies linking Nono64/NotWith/Caftaric/R567. While you've being editing in the same area as Nono64 (categorizing organism articles), your edits display none of those idiosyncrasies. To start with, you do respond to recent criticism of your edits on your talk page; Caftaric only rarely responded, and only once responded to something that was directly critical (although both of you don't exhibit much change in your behavior in response to criticism). You don't use edit summaries when recategorizing; that's not so good, but it is quite different from Caftaric, who consistently used the vague "cleanup" edit summary when recategorizing. Differences in talk page responsiveness and consistent usage/non-usage of edit summaries point to some pretty fundamental personality differences that are indicative of two people, not one.
Caftaric et al. frequently moved pages that had "(genus)" as a disambiguation term to a more specific term for the type of organism (e.g. "(fly)" see Caftaric move log). I actually support that, and consider it one of Caftaric's more positive contributions to Wikipedia. However, I note 2 of your 7 most recent page creations are Emblema (genus), and Rhodopis (genus). I edited both of those subsequently, and I created Emblema (bird). That should exonerate you. To me, it's utterly inconceivable that Caftaric, after waging war against "(genus)" as a dab term across multiple accounts and years, would create a "(genus)" redirect while failing to create a more specific "(bird)" redirect. I can't unblock you myself, and I'm not really a fan of your edits, but I strongly believe you are not the same person as Caftaric et al and should not be blocked on the grounds of being a sockpuppet of those accounts. Plantdrew ( talk) 01:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
ameliorationis subject to discussion, which requires all parties to participate politely with willingness to accept other editors' views. Peter coxhead ( talk) 06:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Category:Wintering birds, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I desperately await the reviewal of my blocking decision (the sooner the better) ... before some users wrongly undo many of my useful edits. -- Couiros22 ( talk) 11:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
How long is this gonna take ? --
Couiros22 (
talk)
10:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
@
DexDor: Why did you create a project article (see
[10]), when you now know all six contributors are definitely not the same editor (see
User:Plantdrew's above comment) ? --
Couiros22 (
talk)
06:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
You've got no proof that I'm a sockpuppet of any of the other users (who partially aren't related either), so please re-answer my question. -- Couiros22 ( talk) 06:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Couiros22 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was initially blocked on the allegation of sockpuppetry ; however this has been explicitly disproven by one Administrator above ; the accusation then shifted to the main complaints regarding my edits, that have mainly involved the categorization of animal species. I have allegedly tended not to give enough concrete explanation behind the categorization system. As I have explained in my last posts, these were carried out according to information extractable from to reputed sound sources (often available from the taxonbar at the bottom of the page): BirdLife and Avibase (birds), Eol and Fishbase (fish) and Eol and EPPO (plants) and occasionally other sources if no clear-cut plausible range of presence could still not be obtained. My system of categorization is very similar to that of the currently established flora system (which also includes both natural and political sub-divisions). As previously implied, this is not a deliberate attempt to create a muddling effect for readers, but merely as both should pragmatically be considered. For example, the "Freshwater fish of Australia" cat. was divided into "fish of northern/southern... Australia" as well as into political sub-units e.g. "birds of Queensland" (the equivalent of "northeastern Australia") or "fish of NSW or Victoria" that are prima facie subregions of "fish of Southeastern Australia". Once again, the fish species were categorized according to their clear-cut fathomable range of presence (primarily from the taxonbar sources "Eol and Fishbase" in particular). This is the same method I applied throughout other edits throughout fauna project. As a side note, the overall categorization has inevitably been improved, given the preexistence of often flawed, random and often incomplete categorizations. Many recently created bird categories have also been translated into other languages (Persian and Arabic). The only main other criticism spurred by my edits has been my recent tendency to embolden the common name at the expense of the scientific nomination ; however I did this only by purpose of standardization, in order to comply with how the major fish species articles are redacted. Although it's true that in many cases the common name did not fully appear to be the concrete official appellation, it was often the term used by FishBase, with a more than high likeliness of being considered as the official common appellation in the near future. So all in all, I understand that my edits may have often led to a surplus of confusion and ambiguity (even though I never hoped and rarely expected them to), but blocking my account and reverting my edits is not a pragmatical solution IMHO. Couiros22 (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
There have been a few claims here as to why this isn't socking, but I've not seen anything convincing - and it's certainly not true that socking "has been explicitly disproven by one Administrator". The arguments against socking appear relatively trivial - different use of edit summaries, different response to talk page comments - but they're the kinds of things that almost all socks change as a matter of course when earlier socks are blocked. And, you're likely to see the same things with any single editor over time too.
Having said all that, I have a perhaps relatively relaxed attitude to socking. But just in that, if a returning blocked user can come back without causing problems, keep themselves under the radar, and not get involved in disruptive editing - well, if not entirely blind, my eye can become a little cloudy.
But I'm not seeing that here. Instead, I'm seeing controversial edits, contrary to MOS and to consensus, and with no acceptance of any wrongdoing and a simple combative insistence that Couiros22 is right and everyone else is wrong. With or without socking, that has not been addressed and I think it is sufficient for a block on its own.
As such, I can not see that it would be beneficial to unblock, and I decline the request.
I suggest that any admin considering a possible future unblock request should examine the evidence collected by User:JamesBWatson and not try to make any judgements without seeing it. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 14:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I have been asked to look at this block. As someone who is not exactly the world's biggest fan of the application of sockpuppetry policies, let's put that to one side and just focus on the actual editing. I think the problem is simply you were going at a rapid rate through various biology articles, changing them without leaving any edit summary and little else in the way of communication. That is a reasonable argument for a block; we prevent more large-scale changes to the encyclopedia until other people have had their say on whether they think the categorisation is appropriate. Regardless, I'm prepared to accept that your edits were made in good faith and should not have just been blindly reverted unless the reverter can easily point to a long-established discussion that says "nope, we don't do it like that". (This specific example is fairly innocuous but I can vaguely recall one instance where an admin recklessly and foolishly restored a WP:BLP violation that a sockpuppet removed).
I have no idea whether your edits are a net improvement and whether the changes to the classification have had broad agreement and consensus; for that, I'll need an expert on Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds and Wikipedia:WikiProject Fish. The only editor who springs to mind is FunkMonk as I did his good article review for Passenger Pigeon which is now a featured article.
So, given you have explained yourself, I would be prepared to consider an unblock provided:
If we can get all three of those issues resolved, we can look towards an unblock. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? -- Couiros22 ( talk) 11:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@
Ritchie333:
Category:African migratory birds, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I am genuinely sorry that this has taken so long. When I placed the block, I thought it very probable that you would request an unblock, and I expected that if so another administrator would deal with it within a couple of days or so. Whatever the eventual outcome, it is not good for you to be left in limbo for almost a month. I have now emailed another administrator, who has agreed to make an independent assessment of the evidence, and I hope he can do so very soon. I hope that he will decide to either accept or decline your request, in which case I shall accept his decision, whether I personally agree with it or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 09:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Couiros22 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
c.f. previous unblock request ; request review by further administrators Couiros22 ( talk) 15:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unfortunately, if two experienced administrators have upheld the block, there is probably
consensus for it, so there really isn't anything I can do. I can review the block at the
administrators noticeboard but I fully predict the response would be along the lines of "go away and stop wasting our time".
Sorry, I think giving people a second chance (with a strict notice that if they get into trouble, they get a much bigger block) tends to work well and stop unblock requests hanging, but sometimes things don't go your way. The only thing I can recommend is take six months off editing completely and come back in the new year, requesting the
standard offer.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
19:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Resubmitting the same request without adding anything, in the hope of this time getting a different administrator who will make a different decision, is known as admin shopping, and is not considered a good idea. (It is sometimes also referred to as "asking the other parent".) It is very unlikely to lead to an administrator deciding to overturn the decision of the administrator who reviewed your latest unblock. Also, resubmitting the same unblock request may be seen as wasting administrators' time, and if so it is likely that your talk page access will be removed to prevent further waste of time. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 18:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@
Ritchie333: Sorry to divert your attention yet again, though just summoning your help once more as you're one of the very few contributors who seems to interpret the position I'm currently in far better than anyone else...
Do you know any other moderators whom you have a feeling could offer a better, more objective evaluation regarding this everlasting unblock trial? -- Couiros22 ( talk) 19:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Category:South American howlers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Category:Birds of the British Isles, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Category:Birds of the Miombo, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Category:Birds of the Albertine Rift montane forests, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Category:Birds of Equatorial Africa, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Category:Seabirds by location, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333:@ JamesBWatson:
Hi, My six month blocking period has now come to an end. May I request an unblock ? -- Couiros22 ( talk) 15:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Couiros22 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My six month blocking period has now come to an end. Couiros22 ( talk) 11:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your block is indefinite, not only for six months. WP:SO may apply but you still need to convince us you won't repeat the behaviour that lead to your block. You don't just automatically get unblocked, particularly given that your abuse has stretched back years. Yamla ( talk) 12:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
{{
tlx|So what should I need to do ?}}
So what should I need to do ? -- Couiros22 ( talk) 12:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Your being a sock puppet is not a closed case, whether you wish it were or not. I am not an admin and I have not seen the evidence compiled against you, but I trust those that have seen it and have drawn the conclusion that despite your protestations to the contrary you are in fact a sockpuppet.
You refused to engage in discussion about your changes, simply stating in a few places what you were doing (we could see that for ourselves) and refusing to explain your rationale, or understanding that not everyone agreed with it.
Given all that has occurred, why should we believe that you will not resume changing the first sentence of article against the MOS?
What I want is for you to own up to your errors, demonstrate that you have some insight into why those behaviours have gotten you to this position and explain how we can trust you not to do those things again. However, given the sockpuppet information below, this discussion is moot. - Nick Thorne talk 23:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Couiros22 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
...reputting unblock template in wait of response. -- Couiros22 ( talk) 12:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Having reviewed the available evidence both public and private, I am not convinced by your protestations of innocence. I think that if you wish to continue your appeals, the next step is to contact the arbitration committee. GoldenRing ( talk) 22:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@ JamesBWatson: Could you please email me the socking evidence so I can review this request? GoldenRing ( talk) 00:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Category:Birds of the Congo Basin, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. 213.205.242.240 ( talk) 10:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Couiros22 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have emailed the arbitration committee... could you please refer to them before refusing my unblock request? -- Couiros22 ( talk) 15:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Since this matter is now with the Arbitration Committee, there is no need to post further unblock appeals here. The Committee will respond to you in due course and are perfectly capable of unblocking you themselves if they see fit, without the need for an unblock appeal here. Further appeals on this page would constitute admin shopping, so I would advise against making any until you have had a response from ArbCom. Yunshui 雲 水 16:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I have revoked talk page access due to continued abuse of the unblock template (and previously using this page to continue personal attacks). Any admin is free to reinstate if they believe it warranted. This is done without prejudice to whatever is in front of the arbitration committee right now. -- Yamla ( talk) 16:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Category:African pangolins, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Category:Fauna of Eurasia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Category:Indo-Pacific fauna, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has reviewed the available public and private evidence. We conclude that there is insufficient grounds for linking this user to User:Nono64. Absent other evidence of misuse of multiple accounts, I have lifted the indefinite block. – Joe ( talk) 21:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
When you are making changes to articles, please include a word or two in the Edit Summary to make it easier for other editors to understand what you changed at a glance. The particular article I was looking at was Whooping crane with the edit here. For examples of what other editors put in the edit comments, check out Whooping crane: Revision history
Thanks so much and happy editing! RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Couiros22, I'm going to ask you to read two things before you make any further edit:
Please understand that, in light of your history, persisting in editing against consensus is now very likely to lead to an indefinite suspension of your editing privileges. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 14:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Seram boobook, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ambon ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 07:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Just letting you know, it's not OK to move pages between categories while you are waiting for a rename discussion to complete. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
20:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC).
I notice that you have resumed your re-categorisation crusade, again making multiple edits in rapid succession, including several within the course of a minute on many occasions and all without any edit summaries (Looking over your last 250 edits in your cointribution lists , there is not one edit summary). Given that you were previously blocked in part for exactly this behavior, I advise you to slow down, use edit summaries and obtain a consensus for your changes before you make them as you have been advised previously. - Nick Thorne talk 22:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Nick Thorne: Did you even bother to understand them? cf. changes @ 18:14 and 18:55 ; all the rest are done in the same reason
so I advise you to stop this silly condescending mentality -- Couiros22 ( talk) 10:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rihanna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barbadian ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 08:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marius Copil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andreas Beck ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Bongo (antelope) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 14:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paige Compositor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Linotype ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 08:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Couiros22, this was going to be an explanation of why the above DYK was not eligible, and a review of how DYK works. But after your post of fopdoodle
to your nomination right before I closed it, it doesn't seem worth my time. Suffice it to say that if you are ever going to make a future nomination at DYK, the articles should be created and/or expanded fivefold by you in the seven days prior to the nomination—if not, they will be closed as unsuccessful just like this one has been. Thanks.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
18:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Couiros22. I saw your move at Stinking Bishop (cheese). So should Cheddar cheese → Cheddar (cheese)? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 14:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, good point, however IMHO :
...regarding the rule on how qualifiers should be mentioned (in this case, the word 'cheese'):
- Cheddar : in the absence of other existing homonym articles
- Cheddar cheese : in the presence of other existing homonym articles (yet the cheese article much more renowned to some extent than other homonym articles, e.g. village, tv channel etc.)
- Cheddar (cheese) : in the presence of other existing homonym articles
- stinking bishop : in the absence of other existing homonym articles
- stinking bishop cheese : in the presence of other existing homonym articles (although the cheese article much more renowned to some extent than other homonym articles, i.e. pear)
- stinking bishop (cheese) : in the presence of other existing homonym articles
-- Couiros22 ( talk) 16:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I know I might have read the diff's wrong - nd it might pan tropical that you were editing, but nevertheless /info/en/?search=Category:Cosmopolitan_vertebrates certainly sorts out enthusiasm for every landmass on the planet - well done! JarrahTree 05:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Category:Pan-tropical fauna, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. -- Killarnee ( T• 1• 2) 19:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Category:Birds of the Albertine Rift montane forests requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_19#Category:Birds_of_the_Albertine_Rift_montane_forests. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DexDor (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Category:Lesbia has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Lepidopyga requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Your edit to Dongola horse has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 15:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Couiros22: Can you please explain why you removed this sourced information from the Green-backed Firecrown article? I plan to add it back, but am unclear as to why it was removed in the first place. MeegsC ( talk) 15:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I think it was a "misdeletion" :
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stenocereus eruca, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Recumbent and Cereus.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Couiros: When you're doing all of your hard work on categorising, can you please leave the defaultsort as alphabetical (i.e. if the article is called "Eurasian Bittern" then leave the sort that way), and instead add the "last name first" sorts (i.e. "bittern, eurasian") to the categories for which you want them listed that way? Changing the defaultsort is screwing up a lot of categories where the birds are now the only thing that don't sort alphabetically —including some over which we have no control (see the WP:BIRD showcase for an example of a mess). Thanks! MeegsC ( talk) 15:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@ MeegsC: Yes perhaps... however, could you please give me a few examples of bird articles for which this may concern, as for the vast majority of them, the Defaulsort only applies to categories linked to geographical repartition (with only the genus and 'birds described in...' cats. being adjusted according to the original name)? In other words, does the Defaultsort pose problem for some types of categories in particular? thanks :) -- Couiros22 ( talk) 20:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Couiros22: Did you know that in Chinese names, the surname comes first? See this for an explanation. So when you change the defaultsort for people like Yue Yuan, from "Yue Yaun" to "Yuan, Yue" you're now sorting by their first name, which I don't think is what you meant to do. MeegsC ( talk) 13:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
No worries - the article in question happens to have the first name first (which is why I added the defaultsort) ; otherwise see the redirect link that I created ;-)
A tag has been placed on Category:Galerella indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 15:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Greetings, User:Couiros22. Can you please explain what you are doing in changing category names, on page after page, without any edit summaries whatsoever, on edits such as this? Wikiuser100 ( talk) 04:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Swedish Open (darts), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alan Norris.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Painted hornshark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bathurst Island.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure the reason(s) for your edit on Help:IPA/French. Please make sure to put an edit summary to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Even a short one is better than nothing. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. To help yourself remember, you can enable "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" in your preferences. Thanks! — W.andrea ( talk) 21:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
@ W.andrea:
Hi,
kind regards -- Couiros22 ( talk) 10:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi again, I just want to make sure you're aware of the edit war policy, especially the three-revert rule. All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you're unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Thank you. — W.andrea ( talk) 20:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Please be careful when editing talk pages to make sure conversations go in order. Your edit on Help talk:IPA/French changed the context of my reply, which, at worst, could be considered misrepresentation per WP:TALKNO. If you intended to edit your previous comment, see WP:TALK#REVISE. Thanks. — W.andrea ( talk) 18:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm aware this could sound hypocritical since I'm also reverting, but I think I'm justified in going back to the existing version of the page, which was already established through consensus. If you can get another editor on board with your changes, I'll step back. And I'm open to being convinced myself, but everything you've brought up on the talk page so far hasn't convinced me. It might help to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's conventions on pronunciation, like MOS:DIAPHONEMIC and Help:IPA/English.
By the way, when you reply on the talk page but don't respond to all the points I brought up, I don't bother replying myself.
— W.andrea ( talk) 18:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Couiros22, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
Please remember to
sign your messages on
talk pages by typing four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome! I see that you have been here for near unto a year and nobody has welcomed you. Well, belated welcome. --
Bejnar (
talk)
19:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
In the Mountain Infobox, latitude and longitude are formatted like this:
Good luck with more Pyrenees! -- Bejnar ( talk) 19:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Excellent new article! This article is very good for a new article by new editors. Mr. Guye ( talk) 15:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks for creating La Maladeta, Couiros22!
Wikipedia editor Mr. Guye just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Good job. This article is now reviewed.
To reply, leave a comment on Mr. Guye's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Wikipedia.
I noticed an article you worked on. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:
This applies to infoboxes, too.
The animals are all listed in the See also section, so best there and not twice.
Thanks, and my best wishes.
Tony (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bay of Txingudi, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://wikipedia.orange.fr/wiki/Baie_de_Chingoudy.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot ( talk) 13:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for starting Cotentin Donkey. I see you've made a number of other useful articles in a similar way. So please forgive me for asking you to do things a bit differently:
If you have questions or need advice, please feel free to ask. Please don't let my suggestions above prevent you from enjoying being an editor here. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 13:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi again! You are doing a great job creating useful articles. But I'm going to ask you again to slow down a bit and start being a lot more careful. You are randomly copying stuff both from French Wikipedia and now from within this one too without any acknowledgement, and often without making the obvious basic changes that are needed. Please note carefully:
and (this is just a warning, not a threat):
I'm still available to answer questions, feel free to ask at any time. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 13:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Forêt de Tronçais, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Primary, Deadwood and Paris basin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Per this source I think your Corse horse is actually the Corsican horse may want to look into that and move the article. BTW, in the future, maybe do more than create a one-sentence stub with no project tag, we will not find it to improve it. Montanabw (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lac de Bort-les-Orgues, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Auvergne. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dongola (Horse), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Italian-Abyssinian War. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Hallo, I've come across a few of your new French mountains while stub-sorting. A few comments:
Thanks. Pam D 14:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pardusco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tallman. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi there; I see you've been fixing the categories of some New Zealand birds to specify they are only found on the South Island. Unfortunately the category "Birds of South Island" is incorrect. The name of the island is "the South Island", always written with a definite article – yes, it's a strange usage. Would you be able, please, to correct the category in each of the articles you've changed? Many thanks. Giantflightlessbirds ( talk) 12:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, for Asian, European and African species, just the continent category please. I know there are country cats out there, but they should be removed, not more added, thanks Jimfbleak ( talk) 17:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jimfbleak ( talk) 13:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Please take heed of the formal warning above, and seek consensus. The best place for a wider discussion might be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds, although I can't see how you can possibly justify removing the Birds of Europe category from relevant species pages anyway. Also, please give an edit summary for your edits. Jimfbleak ( talk) 13:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Example:
Hi Couiros22,
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I am responding to a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and have looked at your recent edit history in detail. Would you please undertake to follow WP:BRD - that when an editor reverts you, that you do not attempt to make the same change again without consensus?
This is a collaborative project and you will not get far if you follow your current approach. Please edit according to established norms and consensus, discussing as appropriate with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds. I also recommend that you work with experienced editors like Jimfbleak, rather than against them.
Best regards — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Birds of the Andes. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Birds of the Himalayas. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Birds of the Himalayas – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Passengerpigeon ( talk) 14:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Birds of the Andes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jimfbleak ( talk) 14:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Couiros22. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that you've made some changes to the categories that Common hill myna belongs in. I've just started dealing with the issues of categories and so I've got a few questions about the changes that you have made, some of which are general in nature, some specific
1) - If a bird is present throughout most of Southeast Asia, then "birds of South East Asia" should be used - however, if the bird has a much more localized range, then individual countries cats should apply - e.g. birds of Malesia, birds of Indonesia, birds of Borneo, or even "Birds of Brunei" if the bird is endemic or only restricted to the north of the island (to which another category 'birds of East Malaysia' could also be added to).
This was discussed on the Project birds talk page.
2) - I decided up until now to exclude cats. of areas where the bird has been introduced, given I felt many bird species tend to be "extirpated" from their original geographical zones of predilection. Although I agree that this is more discussible.
3) - As stated above, if the bird is restricted to Hainan or equally to most southern parts China, then "Birds of Hainan" is suitable (perhaps a third category eg. "birds of South China" should also be added). If the bird is present throughout most of the country then only "Birds of China" is necessary.
4) The starling category was +/- empty; therefore I decided to include only the names of some of the most common species. -- Couiros22 ( talk) 11:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
1) It was earlier suggested for animals species in general:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds&diff=prev&oldid=743635920 which was later followed up here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_68#Proposals.3F
as a reminder: - If a bird is present throughout most of Asia, then there isn't any need to refine into subcategories (or to list every single country - there would be a lot of them) - if a bird has a more localized range of presence within a larger geographical cat. then relevant subcategories should apply (e.g. if a bird is present in only India, then "birds of India" rather than "birds of South Asia") - one exception: eg. if a bird is sparsely present throughout East Asia yet notably present in Korea (more frequent than anywhere else) then one should use both categories: "Birds of East Asia" to indicate that the bird is frequent throughout all or most of the sub-continent and 'birds of Korea' to highlight the fact that the bird is prominently found in Korea.
- If a bird is present in southern China only, then, 'birds of South China' would be more relevant than 'birds of China', given the latter would mislead the user into thinking the bird is found throughout the whole country. - If a user knows a bird is local/endemic to their country, then why should this pose a problem?
2) This is still a matter of debate, but given the very rare amount of bird species to which this matter is an issue, then I think it is not of the utmost importance for the time being.
3) The Birdlife International website is a sound source and also seems to match the areas of repartition from the IOC World Bird List 99% of the time...
If a bird is present throughout most of China, then 'birds of China', if not then sub cats should apply ; only use any category when then bird has a prominent or outstanding presence within that area and compared to its neighboring areas.
4) As the category was almost empty I decided to include only the more common ones & those that are easy to remember - more can be added later (myna not being a true starling either). Also due to the fact that 'starling' category being a literary definition, as opposed to "sturnidae", where there can be found every scientific species of starling. -- Couiros22 ( talk) 16:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Jeesh, guys. I strongly recommend either of you does go and start an RFC on some or all of these, if there's such a perceived lack of clear guidelines. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 13:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- there would be an excessively high amount for many of them - some birds are much more common than others within the geographical division - on average (mostly for users acquainted to the topic but equally for users of any level), it is very relevant, academic and without risk to refine bird species' areas of presence as much as possible
"ARE YOU ACTUALLY SERIOUS ABOUT GETTING ME TO UNDERSTAND YOUR CASE?" Of course I am; even though I am finding it somewhat difficult for you to understand my reasoning, never did I suggest you were stupid or that I wished to argue with you. Therefore I will go through your initial method draft and suggest reformation when necessary.
1) "That geographic categorisation of species should be clearly explained in the category pages." perhaps, OK
2) "That the level at which the species are found should be, unless there is good reason, and that reason is explained on the category pages, all at the same level. This is so that the reader does not need to hunt through several pages of categories in order to find what they need." Simplicity, for this case, isn't the most relevant priority; furthermore it makes sense to list birds' levels of repartition simply according to their most reflected range of presence (retrievable from the BirdLife Int. site), rather than by dividing them into separate country categories, as this would be obfuscating for the reader; moreover while consulting the bird entries of a given country, they would not be able to distinguish which birds are specifically native to that area as opposed to those generally present throughout a much wider area (e.g. across the whole sub-continent). The latter part of the sentence is void given the user would have to look through the same amount of entries and in the vast majority of cases know the name of the bird and search it via the search box anyway.
3) "What these levels are need not be fixed, but they need to be self-consistent - in other words do not start categorising species until all subcategories are sorted out (this is so the reader is not left guessing in which category there animal might be found). Given that countries have already been set up and that these are simple concepts for the reader (as opposed to ecogeographical zones)." Countries may sometimes be further divided into smaller areas (for large states, e.g. USA or Australia, or when distinct areas of occurrence are found there (e.g. 'birds of Bolivia' can further be divided into 'birds of the Bolivian Andes', 'birds of the Bolivian Amazon' and 'birds of the Gran Chaco'); similarly 'birds of Ecuador' can be refined into: Ecuadorian Andes, Amazon, Tumbes-Choco-Magdalena and Galapagos Islands). Birds solely native to those areas should be categorized accordingly rather than simply 'birds of Bolivia', which would lead the user to believe they are generally found across the whole country, rather than at local level.
4) "Thus the simplest method is to list all species by country only, unless there is good reason, and the reason is stated in the appropriate parent category article." see above
5) "All of the areas must be listed and be complete - in other words no areas are not included - otherwise the reader will go to that category and not find the animal that they are looking for." yes
6) "how many categories are displayed at the bottom of the page is relatively unimportant, however some species have near global distributions, in which case these creatures are not put into country categories and are instead put in the global or near global distribution category. If this becomes too full then this is subcategorised into the continents but no further." agreed ; see above
7) "creatures that are restricted to one or two countries may be broken down into one further subcategory, but again only with it made clear in the category article." birds are simply classified under both categories. If the bird is restricted to one country, then it is classified under "Endemic birds of...".
8) "Categories are listed on an article page in alphabetical order, this is the only objective system. Otherwise it makes it hard to find them - note the display of categories at the bottom of articles is more for the benefit of the editors than it is for the readers, though readers may find them useful also" But this is how categories are usually accessed.
9) "includes regular migrant birds and established introduced species" wintering birds are already listed separately under ("Vagrant birds of") ; introduced species will also later be added in the same way
10) "This is my proposed methodology based on the principles of a) what categorisation is used for b) self-consistent objective categorisation that is simple for the reader to follow c) acknowledging the underlying limitations in determining distributions of species." a) categories must be defined according to the broader project which they constitute, in this case an ornithological atlas b) simplicity is not an issue - see above c) for the ostensibility and elaborateness of the project it is better to not to restrain categories at country level only -- Couiros22 ( talk) 17:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Couiros22: Please don't remove tags from articles where you haven't fixed the tagged problem. In the Tit berrypecker article, you removed a tag asking for a reference for questioned information, but didn't provide any reference. (Here's the link to your change...) Please don't do that again! Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. MeegsC ( talk) 17:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Categorisation of birds by location". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 30 January 2017.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
15:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Categorisation of birds by location, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
20:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
You completely ignore the any discussion at the bird project about categories and just go your own way changing long-accepted categories to your own random system, which is largely useless for its intended purpose to help searchers. I wouldn't mind so much if your categories were correct, but they are not. I can't be bothered cleaning up all your mess, but I don't expect you to revert my edits where I do so without discussion.
Now, I've explained why you are wrong, and I'm going to restore the original status quo. If you think I'm wrong, please discuss before acting. Having seen how you ignore the opinions of others, it's more likely that you will just revert me again, in which case I'll take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring; don't say you haven't been warned Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
You keep insisting that I am wrong and offensive yet I've already justified myself many times on the talk pages - feel free to comment on those. I clearly don't wish to be considered like that given that's not my intention. For non-breeding ranges in general (wintering, summer etc.) I thought the default term was vagrant, so having found no other alternative I decided to stick to it, which does not strictly contradict its definition anyway. If such an amendment needs to be done then why not use the bot to revert to "wintering birds of" instead. But again, I see no real misconception the way things currently are. The northern wheatear, according to most major ornithological sources is holarctic, with more than just a small amount of birds in North America. Besides, the Siberian accentor also has a very limited amount of birds in Europe - yet why do you accept to include the latter as "birds of Europe"? So far, a huge amount of bird articles were categorized partially, vaguely or incorrectly, which I have now amended to a great extent (labeled "corrected bird range", among many others). Had you realized this, perhaps you would show a little more respect and recognition. -- Couiros22 ( talk) 19:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Couiros, I saw you removed that category from some articles, why? I think it is a pretty important category to keep? Cheers, Tisquesusa ( talk) 16:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
All the pages in the parent category are 'primates from South America' (hence, only the parent category should be listed as "primates of SA"). -- Couiros22 ( talk) 16:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I just made a few edits to articles about animals, removing some odd-looking code that I thought was redundant, and was stopping the articles from being alphabetized on the category page. Having looked at my edits via my Watchlist I see that you were the one that inserted the code in the first place. Apologies if I've misunderstood something. Feel free to revert my edits if you see fit, but could you please tell me what is the point of this coding? (and in future I'll leave it be.) nagual design 15:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Category:Megabovids of Africa, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Category:Mammals of Libya, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Category:Vagrant birds of Africa, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 09:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Why are you removing fish from [[Category:Freshwater fish of Australia]] without discussion, as you did for these fish: Queemsland lungfish, estuary perch, Macquarie perch, golden perch and Australian bass? If you do not provide an appropriate justification I will revert. - Nick Thorne talk 13:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Yet this is the way in which species within a single category are taxonomically grouped together into sub-cats - for clarity, relevance and often to reduce the large amount of entries. Even though this category does not have an excessive amount of entries, for standardization and to avoid obfuscation, I chose to make them only accessible from their taxonomical parent category. -- Couiros22 ( talk) 15:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Couiros22. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Category:Vagrant birds of Europe, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Category:Asian antelopes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Category:Birds of Bioko, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 07:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Category:Birds of the Miombo, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
This is why so many of us are getting frustrated with your categorization attempts. You start a job, and then get bored and go off to do something else. This category hasn't been completely filled; not even close. You've started, but left the bulk of work for someone else to do "someday". How does this help the readers? Answer: it doesn't. Why do you continue to do this?! MeegsC ( talk) 13:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
So you'll admit that a "breeding birds of Alaska" category will necessarily always be incomplete? MeegsC ( talk) 09:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Regarding edits such as this to Category:Birds of Australia - (1) What exactly does your text mean (i.e. what articles belong in the category with that text, but wouldn't without the text or vice versa)? (2) Did you discuss your text anywhere before adding it to the category pages? (3) If it applies to all animals-of-area categories then shouldn't it be explained on a guidance page somewhere and then the category page (just) contain a link to that guidance? (4) Have you recategorized any pages in line with (your understanding of) the new text? Please answer these questions before you add the text to any more category pages. DexDor (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I see you have been busy with birds, (etc.)..... I originally started some birds articles, (2006 and 2007, etc) & categories. Birds are so amazing, as are all creatures. I never got to Category:Birds of the Andes, but I wanted to. I didn't have the time (no tiempo) !!--- So, just saying hello from the hot AZ desert of SW Arizona, and the hot southwest of USA. I eventually saw thrushes, notably walking on the ground, between clumps of grasses (and occasionally perched). Here in southwest AZ, the cormorants are interesting, as well as the Ospreys, along the Colorado River. Also with the common kingfisher. I only saw your work because of my watchlist, and looked at the Birds of the Northern Andes. Good Work !! Mmcannis ( talk) 17:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, if you're changing categories, could you please mark your edits with an edit comment like "categories", and perhaps consider marking them as minor. Otherwise you waste other editors' time checking your work as unexplained activity. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 07:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Emblemaria piratula a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Pirate blenny. This is known as a " cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. William Avery ( talk) 14:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Couiros22, I don't doubt that your edits were made in good faith, but the edits were incorrect, and wrongly changed the leads of multiple articles. Please revert those edits. I already changed Synodus_intermedius - the title name should appear first in bold text (in bold italics for species) - and the common name following (in bold italics for species) as demonstrated at the article I just corrected. Also, do not change the category names to add the common name if a category is not available. Feel free to ping me if you have further questions. Thank you. Atsme 📞 📧 18:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Organisms. Stop edit-warring and making changes that obviously don't have consensus. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Couiros22, I'm reluctant to take this to WP:ANI, but you will soon force me. You just aren't listening to what people are saying.
All of these are clear in the guidelines and have been explained above by various editors. I'll give you one more change to revert your edits and seek consensus to move the articles. Peter coxhead ( talk) 12:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
If the article title is Common name then the article's first sentence should start withScientific name or common name is a...
If you want to use the common name instead of the scientific name as the title for an article currently titled with the scientific name, or vice versa, then either move the article (if the change is likely to be uncontroversial) or create a move request. Given that you seem to have difficulty with judging the likely reception of your changes so far, I very strongly recommend you stick to the move request path, at least for the time being. - Nick Thorne talk 11:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Common name (Scientific name) is a...
that would require every article to be moved to their common name
: Couiros22, you – and inadvertently others above – are confusing two possible meanings of "common name". At
WP:COMMONNAME, "common name" does not mean "English name", it means the most commonly recognized name, which to be used as the article title must meet all the criteria at
WP:AT including precision. The scientific name is often the common name, in this sense. To be clear: articles about organisms can only be at the English name if the English name meets all the criteria at WP:AT and there is consensus that this is so. Then, as
Nick Thorne says, the article begins with the title.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
08:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, @ Couros22:, I quickly checked your contributions and I see you are busily carrying on your merry way. If I see any further changes of articles to the effect that you change the first part of the lead from the article title to something else I will be taking you to AN/I. You've been told politely to cease and desist, but you are acting in classic IDHT fashion. It's now time to actually stop. Consider this your last and final warning. - Nick Thorne talk 10:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. See here -- Nick Thorne talk 15:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Your behaviour is currently being discussed at ANI and yet (rather than dealing with the concerns of other editors) you are making more problematic edits - e.g. this (with no edit summary) which removes the article from Category:Fish of Australia (although it didn't when you made that edit because you'd messed up the category structure with this earlier edit). Are you trying to get blocked? DexDor (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Diffusing categories is normal practice for large categories, otherwise we would we put every fish into Category:Fish. It would be too large, unworkable and useless. The same logic can be applied to any large category.
WP:SUBCAT says "Apart from certain exceptions an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it."
I'm not sure I can see what Couiros22 is doing wrong and he is attempting to explain the rationale for his edits.. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 12:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The distribution categories used for flora have been alluded to several times above. Please note that there is a well worked out system used for plants, described in great detail at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. For me, the problem with animals is the absence of an overall system, which leads to a lack of clarity as to what some categories mean, and inconsistent approaches to different groups. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Please first explain why many floral species of Europe are categorized under "flora of eastern/northern/southwestern... Europe", as opposed to simply under "Flora of Europe"."Why" is explained at the WGSRPD page I linked to. Peter coxhead ( talk)
Couiros22, Are you the same person as
User:Nono64 and
User:NotWith ?
DexDor
(talk)
05:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban
may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by first reading the
guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. |
Couiros22 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I do NOT possess multiple accounts ; what evidence is there for this ?
Decline reason:
Given the overlap in editing, this is not plausible. Yamla ( talk) 12:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Couiros22 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I do not understand your last comment. Which other accounts are you referring to and could you please give valid comparisons ? Couiros22 ( talk) 12:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only; this is not an unblock request. For evidence, see here. Yamla ( talk) 13:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@ Yamla:@ JamesBWatson:: I have C22 on my watchlist because of some recent interactions we have had, and I've commented on the recent ANI thread, but I have to say this sockpuppet block seems to come out of left field, and without a sockpuppet report that I can find, I tend to doubt it. I'm not sure what you are seeing on that interaction report aside from some strong correlation between Nono64 and Notwith, but I've looked pretty closely and I just don't see what you're identifying as clear evidence linking Couiros22 and those other two... Would you mind taking another look and making sure you are seeing what you think you are seeing? Neil916 ( Talk) 05:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Couiros22 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I still fail to understand. It appears that all three of us have indeed been actively contributing to the Animal project... yet these pages still represent little compared to the totality of our contributions and cannot suggest that we are the same user. Couiros22 ( talk) 13:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla ( talk) 23:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Here is a set of times attributable to many concurrent edits between
myself and user
Caftaric :
7 Jun 17:40, 11:11 ; 6 Jun 11:04 ; 27 May 18:53 ; 26 May 11:35 ; 14 May 17:12, 16:50
Yet how can these reasonably be possible if we are the same user ? --
Couiros22 (
talk)
18:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
@
Yamla: Would you please mind adding my name to
WP:SPI as well as those of all other alleged "sockpuppets" in question :
Caftaric,
Nono64,
NotWith,
Wwikix and
R567 ?
note : I've briefly investigated their contributions, which cannot be considered as detrimental either. --
Couiros22 (
talk)
07:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
No, given your concurrent edits were deliberately made ; mine weren't.
How can you make such silly and provocative accusations if you seemingly ignore what my edits actually consist of ?
This is fucked up. I can't say I'm especially sorry to see you blocked, as I have issues with the majority of your recent edits. But if you're going to be blocked, it should be based on your edits, with the possibility of you being unblocked if you agree to change your behavior, not because you've been mistakenly identified as a sock of another user, with no possibility of being unblocked unless you (falsely) admit to being a sock. I've been around long enough to see NotWith switch over to the Caftaric account (and briefly editing as R567, which was wrongly identified as a sock of Wwikix and blocked); the Nono64 account is before my time, but I've come across their edits and recognize their signature. There are numerous idiosyncrasies linking Nono64/NotWith/Caftaric/R567. While you've being editing in the same area as Nono64 (categorizing organism articles), your edits display none of those idiosyncrasies. To start with, you do respond to recent criticism of your edits on your talk page; Caftaric only rarely responded, and only once responded to something that was directly critical (although both of you don't exhibit much change in your behavior in response to criticism). You don't use edit summaries when recategorizing; that's not so good, but it is quite different from Caftaric, who consistently used the vague "cleanup" edit summary when recategorizing. Differences in talk page responsiveness and consistent usage/non-usage of edit summaries point to some pretty fundamental personality differences that are indicative of two people, not one.
Caftaric et al. frequently moved pages that had "(genus)" as a disambiguation term to a more specific term for the type of organism (e.g. "(fly)" see Caftaric move log). I actually support that, and consider it one of Caftaric's more positive contributions to Wikipedia. However, I note 2 of your 7 most recent page creations are Emblema (genus), and Rhodopis (genus). I edited both of those subsequently, and I created Emblema (bird). That should exonerate you. To me, it's utterly inconceivable that Caftaric, after waging war against "(genus)" as a dab term across multiple accounts and years, would create a "(genus)" redirect while failing to create a more specific "(bird)" redirect. I can't unblock you myself, and I'm not really a fan of your edits, but I strongly believe you are not the same person as Caftaric et al and should not be blocked on the grounds of being a sockpuppet of those accounts. Plantdrew ( talk) 01:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
ameliorationis subject to discussion, which requires all parties to participate politely with willingness to accept other editors' views. Peter coxhead ( talk) 06:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Category:Wintering birds, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I desperately await the reviewal of my blocking decision (the sooner the better) ... before some users wrongly undo many of my useful edits. -- Couiros22 ( talk) 11:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
How long is this gonna take ? --
Couiros22 (
talk)
10:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
@
DexDor: Why did you create a project article (see
[10]), when you now know all six contributors are definitely not the same editor (see
User:Plantdrew's above comment) ? --
Couiros22 (
talk)
06:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
You've got no proof that I'm a sockpuppet of any of the other users (who partially aren't related either), so please re-answer my question. -- Couiros22 ( talk) 06:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Couiros22 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was initially blocked on the allegation of sockpuppetry ; however this has been explicitly disproven by one Administrator above ; the accusation then shifted to the main complaints regarding my edits, that have mainly involved the categorization of animal species. I have allegedly tended not to give enough concrete explanation behind the categorization system. As I have explained in my last posts, these were carried out according to information extractable from to reputed sound sources (often available from the taxonbar at the bottom of the page): BirdLife and Avibase (birds), Eol and Fishbase (fish) and Eol and EPPO (plants) and occasionally other sources if no clear-cut plausible range of presence could still not be obtained. My system of categorization is very similar to that of the currently established flora system (which also includes both natural and political sub-divisions). As previously implied, this is not a deliberate attempt to create a muddling effect for readers, but merely as both should pragmatically be considered. For example, the "Freshwater fish of Australia" cat. was divided into "fish of northern/southern... Australia" as well as into political sub-units e.g. "birds of Queensland" (the equivalent of "northeastern Australia") or "fish of NSW or Victoria" that are prima facie subregions of "fish of Southeastern Australia". Once again, the fish species were categorized according to their clear-cut fathomable range of presence (primarily from the taxonbar sources "Eol and Fishbase" in particular). This is the same method I applied throughout other edits throughout fauna project. As a side note, the overall categorization has inevitably been improved, given the preexistence of often flawed, random and often incomplete categorizations. Many recently created bird categories have also been translated into other languages (Persian and Arabic). The only main other criticism spurred by my edits has been my recent tendency to embolden the common name at the expense of the scientific nomination ; however I did this only by purpose of standardization, in order to comply with how the major fish species articles are redacted. Although it's true that in many cases the common name did not fully appear to be the concrete official appellation, it was often the term used by FishBase, with a more than high likeliness of being considered as the official common appellation in the near future. So all in all, I understand that my edits may have often led to a surplus of confusion and ambiguity (even though I never hoped and rarely expected them to), but blocking my account and reverting my edits is not a pragmatical solution IMHO. Couiros22 (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
There have been a few claims here as to why this isn't socking, but I've not seen anything convincing - and it's certainly not true that socking "has been explicitly disproven by one Administrator". The arguments against socking appear relatively trivial - different use of edit summaries, different response to talk page comments - but they're the kinds of things that almost all socks change as a matter of course when earlier socks are blocked. And, you're likely to see the same things with any single editor over time too.
Having said all that, I have a perhaps relatively relaxed attitude to socking. But just in that, if a returning blocked user can come back without causing problems, keep themselves under the radar, and not get involved in disruptive editing - well, if not entirely blind, my eye can become a little cloudy.
But I'm not seeing that here. Instead, I'm seeing controversial edits, contrary to MOS and to consensus, and with no acceptance of any wrongdoing and a simple combative insistence that Couiros22 is right and everyone else is wrong. With or without socking, that has not been addressed and I think it is sufficient for a block on its own.
As such, I can not see that it would be beneficial to unblock, and I decline the request.
I suggest that any admin considering a possible future unblock request should examine the evidence collected by User:JamesBWatson and not try to make any judgements without seeing it. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 14:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I have been asked to look at this block. As someone who is not exactly the world's biggest fan of the application of sockpuppetry policies, let's put that to one side and just focus on the actual editing. I think the problem is simply you were going at a rapid rate through various biology articles, changing them without leaving any edit summary and little else in the way of communication. That is a reasonable argument for a block; we prevent more large-scale changes to the encyclopedia until other people have had their say on whether they think the categorisation is appropriate. Regardless, I'm prepared to accept that your edits were made in good faith and should not have just been blindly reverted unless the reverter can easily point to a long-established discussion that says "nope, we don't do it like that". (This specific example is fairly innocuous but I can vaguely recall one instance where an admin recklessly and foolishly restored a WP:BLP violation that a sockpuppet removed).
I have no idea whether your edits are a net improvement and whether the changes to the classification have had broad agreement and consensus; for that, I'll need an expert on Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds and Wikipedia:WikiProject Fish. The only editor who springs to mind is FunkMonk as I did his good article review for Passenger Pigeon which is now a featured article.
So, given you have explained yourself, I would be prepared to consider an unblock provided:
If we can get all three of those issues resolved, we can look towards an unblock. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? -- Couiros22 ( talk) 11:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@
Ritchie333:
Category:African migratory birds, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I am genuinely sorry that this has taken so long. When I placed the block, I thought it very probable that you would request an unblock, and I expected that if so another administrator would deal with it within a couple of days or so. Whatever the eventual outcome, it is not good for you to be left in limbo for almost a month. I have now emailed another administrator, who has agreed to make an independent assessment of the evidence, and I hope he can do so very soon. I hope that he will decide to either accept or decline your request, in which case I shall accept his decision, whether I personally agree with it or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 09:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Couiros22 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
c.f. previous unblock request ; request review by further administrators Couiros22 ( talk) 15:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unfortunately, if two experienced administrators have upheld the block, there is probably
consensus for it, so there really isn't anything I can do. I can review the block at the
administrators noticeboard but I fully predict the response would be along the lines of "go away and stop wasting our time".
Sorry, I think giving people a second chance (with a strict notice that if they get into trouble, they get a much bigger block) tends to work well and stop unblock requests hanging, but sometimes things don't go your way. The only thing I can recommend is take six months off editing completely and come back in the new year, requesting the
standard offer.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
19:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Resubmitting the same request without adding anything, in the hope of this time getting a different administrator who will make a different decision, is known as admin shopping, and is not considered a good idea. (It is sometimes also referred to as "asking the other parent".) It is very unlikely to lead to an administrator deciding to overturn the decision of the administrator who reviewed your latest unblock. Also, resubmitting the same unblock request may be seen as wasting administrators' time, and if so it is likely that your talk page access will be removed to prevent further waste of time. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 18:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@
Ritchie333: Sorry to divert your attention yet again, though just summoning your help once more as you're one of the very few contributors who seems to interpret the position I'm currently in far better than anyone else...
Do you know any other moderators whom you have a feeling could offer a better, more objective evaluation regarding this everlasting unblock trial? -- Couiros22 ( talk) 19:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Category:South American howlers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Category:Birds of the British Isles, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Category:Birds of the Miombo, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Category:Birds of the Albertine Rift montane forests, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Category:Birds of Equatorial Africa, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Category:Seabirds by location, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333:@ JamesBWatson:
Hi, My six month blocking period has now come to an end. May I request an unblock ? -- Couiros22 ( talk) 15:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Couiros22 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My six month blocking period has now come to an end. Couiros22 ( talk) 11:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your block is indefinite, not only for six months. WP:SO may apply but you still need to convince us you won't repeat the behaviour that lead to your block. You don't just automatically get unblocked, particularly given that your abuse has stretched back years. Yamla ( talk) 12:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
{{
tlx|So what should I need to do ?}}
So what should I need to do ? -- Couiros22 ( talk) 12:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Your being a sock puppet is not a closed case, whether you wish it were or not. I am not an admin and I have not seen the evidence compiled against you, but I trust those that have seen it and have drawn the conclusion that despite your protestations to the contrary you are in fact a sockpuppet.
You refused to engage in discussion about your changes, simply stating in a few places what you were doing (we could see that for ourselves) and refusing to explain your rationale, or understanding that not everyone agreed with it.
Given all that has occurred, why should we believe that you will not resume changing the first sentence of article against the MOS?
What I want is for you to own up to your errors, demonstrate that you have some insight into why those behaviours have gotten you to this position and explain how we can trust you not to do those things again. However, given the sockpuppet information below, this discussion is moot. - Nick Thorne talk 23:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Couiros22 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
...reputting unblock template in wait of response. -- Couiros22 ( talk) 12:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Having reviewed the available evidence both public and private, I am not convinced by your protestations of innocence. I think that if you wish to continue your appeals, the next step is to contact the arbitration committee. GoldenRing ( talk) 22:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@ JamesBWatson: Could you please email me the socking evidence so I can review this request? GoldenRing ( talk) 00:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Category:Birds of the Congo Basin, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. 213.205.242.240 ( talk) 10:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Couiros22 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have emailed the arbitration committee... could you please refer to them before refusing my unblock request? -- Couiros22 ( talk) 15:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Since this matter is now with the Arbitration Committee, there is no need to post further unblock appeals here. The Committee will respond to you in due course and are perfectly capable of unblocking you themselves if they see fit, without the need for an unblock appeal here. Further appeals on this page would constitute admin shopping, so I would advise against making any until you have had a response from ArbCom. Yunshui 雲 水 16:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I have revoked talk page access due to continued abuse of the unblock template (and previously using this page to continue personal attacks). Any admin is free to reinstate if they believe it warranted. This is done without prejudice to whatever is in front of the arbitration committee right now. -- Yamla ( talk) 16:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Category:African pangolins, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Category:Fauna of Eurasia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Category:Indo-Pacific fauna, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has reviewed the available public and private evidence. We conclude that there is insufficient grounds for linking this user to User:Nono64. Absent other evidence of misuse of multiple accounts, I have lifted the indefinite block. – Joe ( talk) 21:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
When you are making changes to articles, please include a word or two in the Edit Summary to make it easier for other editors to understand what you changed at a glance. The particular article I was looking at was Whooping crane with the edit here. For examples of what other editors put in the edit comments, check out Whooping crane: Revision history
Thanks so much and happy editing! RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Couiros22, I'm going to ask you to read two things before you make any further edit:
Please understand that, in light of your history, persisting in editing against consensus is now very likely to lead to an indefinite suspension of your editing privileges. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 14:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Seram boobook, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ambon ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 07:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Just letting you know, it's not OK to move pages between categories while you are waiting for a rename discussion to complete. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
20:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC).
I notice that you have resumed your re-categorisation crusade, again making multiple edits in rapid succession, including several within the course of a minute on many occasions and all without any edit summaries (Looking over your last 250 edits in your cointribution lists , there is not one edit summary). Given that you were previously blocked in part for exactly this behavior, I advise you to slow down, use edit summaries and obtain a consensus for your changes before you make them as you have been advised previously. - Nick Thorne talk 22:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Nick Thorne: Did you even bother to understand them? cf. changes @ 18:14 and 18:55 ; all the rest are done in the same reason
so I advise you to stop this silly condescending mentality -- Couiros22 ( talk) 10:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rihanna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barbadian ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 08:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marius Copil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andreas Beck ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Bongo (antelope) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 14:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paige Compositor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Linotype ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 08:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Couiros22, this was going to be an explanation of why the above DYK was not eligible, and a review of how DYK works. But after your post of fopdoodle
to your nomination right before I closed it, it doesn't seem worth my time. Suffice it to say that if you are ever going to make a future nomination at DYK, the articles should be created and/or expanded fivefold by you in the seven days prior to the nomination—if not, they will be closed as unsuccessful just like this one has been. Thanks.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
18:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Couiros22. I saw your move at Stinking Bishop (cheese). So should Cheddar cheese → Cheddar (cheese)? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 14:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, good point, however IMHO :
...regarding the rule on how qualifiers should be mentioned (in this case, the word 'cheese'):
- Cheddar : in the absence of other existing homonym articles
- Cheddar cheese : in the presence of other existing homonym articles (yet the cheese article much more renowned to some extent than other homonym articles, e.g. village, tv channel etc.)
- Cheddar (cheese) : in the presence of other existing homonym articles
- stinking bishop : in the absence of other existing homonym articles
- stinking bishop cheese : in the presence of other existing homonym articles (although the cheese article much more renowned to some extent than other homonym articles, i.e. pear)
- stinking bishop (cheese) : in the presence of other existing homonym articles
-- Couiros22 ( talk) 16:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I know I might have read the diff's wrong - nd it might pan tropical that you were editing, but nevertheless /info/en/?search=Category:Cosmopolitan_vertebrates certainly sorts out enthusiasm for every landmass on the planet - well done! JarrahTree 05:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Category:Pan-tropical fauna, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. -- Killarnee ( T• 1• 2) 19:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Category:Birds of the Albertine Rift montane forests requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_19#Category:Birds_of_the_Albertine_Rift_montane_forests. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DexDor (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Category:Lesbia has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Lepidopyga requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Your edit to Dongola horse has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 15:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Couiros22: Can you please explain why you removed this sourced information from the Green-backed Firecrown article? I plan to add it back, but am unclear as to why it was removed in the first place. MeegsC ( talk) 15:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I think it was a "misdeletion" :
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stenocereus eruca, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Recumbent and Cereus.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Couiros: When you're doing all of your hard work on categorising, can you please leave the defaultsort as alphabetical (i.e. if the article is called "Eurasian Bittern" then leave the sort that way), and instead add the "last name first" sorts (i.e. "bittern, eurasian") to the categories for which you want them listed that way? Changing the defaultsort is screwing up a lot of categories where the birds are now the only thing that don't sort alphabetically —including some over which we have no control (see the WP:BIRD showcase for an example of a mess). Thanks! MeegsC ( talk) 15:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@ MeegsC: Yes perhaps... however, could you please give me a few examples of bird articles for which this may concern, as for the vast majority of them, the Defaulsort only applies to categories linked to geographical repartition (with only the genus and 'birds described in...' cats. being adjusted according to the original name)? In other words, does the Defaultsort pose problem for some types of categories in particular? thanks :) -- Couiros22 ( talk) 20:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Couiros22: Did you know that in Chinese names, the surname comes first? See this for an explanation. So when you change the defaultsort for people like Yue Yuan, from "Yue Yaun" to "Yuan, Yue" you're now sorting by their first name, which I don't think is what you meant to do. MeegsC ( talk) 13:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
No worries - the article in question happens to have the first name first (which is why I added the defaultsort) ; otherwise see the redirect link that I created ;-)
A tag has been placed on Category:Galerella indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 15:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Greetings, User:Couiros22. Can you please explain what you are doing in changing category names, on page after page, without any edit summaries whatsoever, on edits such as this? Wikiuser100 ( talk) 04:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Swedish Open (darts), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alan Norris.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Painted hornshark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bathurst Island.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure the reason(s) for your edit on Help:IPA/French. Please make sure to put an edit summary to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Even a short one is better than nothing. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. To help yourself remember, you can enable "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" in your preferences. Thanks! — W.andrea ( talk) 21:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
@ W.andrea:
Hi,
kind regards -- Couiros22 ( talk) 10:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi again, I just want to make sure you're aware of the edit war policy, especially the three-revert rule. All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you're unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Thank you. — W.andrea ( talk) 20:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Please be careful when editing talk pages to make sure conversations go in order. Your edit on Help talk:IPA/French changed the context of my reply, which, at worst, could be considered misrepresentation per WP:TALKNO. If you intended to edit your previous comment, see WP:TALK#REVISE. Thanks. — W.andrea ( talk) 18:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm aware this could sound hypocritical since I'm also reverting, but I think I'm justified in going back to the existing version of the page, which was already established through consensus. If you can get another editor on board with your changes, I'll step back. And I'm open to being convinced myself, but everything you've brought up on the talk page so far hasn't convinced me. It might help to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's conventions on pronunciation, like MOS:DIAPHONEMIC and Help:IPA/English.
By the way, when you reply on the talk page but don't respond to all the points I brought up, I don't bother replying myself.
— W.andrea ( talk) 18:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)