Welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you have already made many useful contributions to astrophysics-related articles. A couple of things that you may wish to consider:
Happy editing! -- Christopher Thomas 06:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
In the Quark matter article you added the statement that a star made mostly of quark matter is a quark star. I'm not entirely happy with the word "mostly" here: a hybrid star with 80% quark matter and 20% nuclear matter around it would still be a hybrid star, not a quark star. Many of the efforts to discover quark stars are based on their having a different kind or surface, not consisting of nuclear matter. I think it has to be 100% quark matter to be a quark star. Dark Formal 00:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I see your point, but I have some problems with your argument. I don't know the equation of state for quark matter, but it is not clear to me that there is much likelihood that a star could be 100.00...% quark matter. By way of analogy, no one believes that the surface of a neutron star is composed of neutron-degenerate matter; the pressure does not rise high enough to eliminate normal nuclear degenerate matter until you get some distance below the surface. Even if "the efforts to discover quark stars are based on their having a different kind or surface, not consisting of nuclear matter", that might well be based on practical considerations (i.e. that being that easiest way to adduce evidence for the existence of quark stars) rather than the belief that this is the way quark stars must be. Also, I haven't seen any references to or discussion of hybrid quark-degenerate matter/neutron-degenerate matter stars as a separate class of object (please correct me if I've missed something). If quark stars were real objects of observational study, splitting the category of all stars containing quark-degenerate matter into pure quark stars and various types of hybrid stars might be a very useful thing to do. At present, however, with quark stars being purely theoretical, it is not clear to me that such subdividing has much utility. I would be happy to defer to anyone with expertise in this area.
Thanks for referring me to this article. Reading it, I find that the authors' model does indeed have strange quark matter going right to the very surface. However, they also cite a "conventional view" (ref. 10, which I don't have online access to) of a tiny nuclear crust at the surface of the star. I suppose it would be OK to say that the star is essentially 100% quark matter in either case, as long as the possibility of that tiny nuclear crust is mentioned. Alternatively, one could say that the nuclear crust is separate from the quark star (if that is indeed the convention in the astrophysics community). What I wanted was a definition of a quark star inclusive enough to cover different models such as these. If you want to re-edit my changes, please go ahead. WolfmanSF ( talk) 02:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I have added a qualifying sentence after the offending revision. Please feel free to re-edit. WolfmanSF 17:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)WolfmanSF
That may have happened in the revert storm when we were dealing with about one vandal edit per minute. Your change is in the current version of the article. TimVickers 19:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Please read the logic for the capitalization on WP:BIRD. I'm not asking you to agree with it, but to leave it be. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Most of the material you removed was from this source, so I'd appreciate it if you read it to see if I misunderstood anything. Serendipod ous 06:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi WolfmanSF. I have long appreciated your efforts to add images to the articles concerning Saturn's rings. I wanted to point out, though, that the image you added here does not actually highlight the correct phenomenon. Those are "wakes" that arise from a single encounter between ring particles and Pan, not density waves that arise from a resonance condition. Density waves in Saturn's rings are so tightly wound that you can't actually see them as spirals (any image with good-enough resolution to see them has too narrow a field of view). Here are some good images that do feature density waves: [1] [2] [3] [4]. I don't know if any of them are already uploaded to WP. The first one might be particularly good, as it includes a bending wave (vertical corrugation) as well as a density wave (basically a compression wave), but all are nice. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 02:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Serendipodous. I don't want to get into an edit war with you over the placement of the Europa images, but to be honest I disagree with both of your recent assertions. "Image:PIA01092 - Evidence of Internal Activity on Europa.jpg" actually shows a much more detailed view of lineae, and gives a much better idea of their structure and mechanism of formation than does "Image:europa g1 true.jpg". The latter shows lineae primarily as albedo features, whereas the former at full size reveals their 'triple-band' structure, and shows that their formation is often associated with transverse faulting. Thus, from my perspective, the latter is at least as appropriate as the former for an illustration in the "lineae" section. The reverse order also has the advantage I pointed out earlier of maintaining a sequence of images showing progressively greater resolution. The captions for some of these images are longer than normal, but there is no harm in this; the information in them is specific to the images, and if it was moved to the text the impact would be lost. Regards, WolfmanSF ( talk) 16:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Wolfman,
Can you access the Science article to check if it's the source of the radii? Those were added anonymously.
Thanks, — kwami ( talk) 02:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Wolfman - thanks for your contribution to Windsor, Ontario, but can you provide a reference for it? There should be a source, especially for the date and the number of buildings that were affected. I grew up in Windsor and don't recall hearing about such a big fire, but then again I wasn't heavily concerned about the city's history at the time! Cheers, PKT ( talk) 13:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I am curious -- why did you make several revisions to the Peshtigo Fire page, eliminating the comet references? Because -- the problem is that while it is true that small meteorites may be cold to the touch when they impact, the alternative hypothesis was about comet fragments. Now while it is probably the case that the fire was not caused by fragments from 3D/Biela, that was listed as an alternative hypothesis -- because it is considered (by a minority) as a hypothesis. As an encyclopedia article, referencing a minority hypothesis that has multiple references is valid, in fact it is necessary. You have deleted this -- but worse, you deleted the references to this alternate hypothesis. Please respond on my discussion page -- unfortunately it may be necessary to revert your changes. SunSw0rd ( talk) 14:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I am curious as the "enthusiastic" use of the Dagger symbol in taxoboxes. I would think that a Dagger at the taxon level which is extinct , be it Species, family, order, what have you, would be enough to show that all taxa below that level are extinct. It seems rather redundant to have daggers all the way down from an order to the species. Is there a wikipolicy I should refer to regarding the dagger use?-- Kevmin ( talk) 00:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Flex Flint ( talk) 15:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Why did you shift all of the pictures to the right of the page and re-align them? Some pictures were best left on the left, and others on the right. It looked better and flowed better with the article. Thanks, and maybe you could look into fixing that. Thanks. Ssmercedes18 ( talk) 00:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
When I made this edit including the word kinetic, I had indeed forgotten that it is the sum of potential and kinetic energy that are being converted into heat, not the kinetic energy alone. Good catch! CosineKitty ( talk) 22:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you want to get this article up to FA? I'd be willing to help. Serendi pod ous 10:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for copy-edits. Do you think the article is ready for FAC? And do you want to be a conominator? Ruslik ( talk) 10:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
In that that definition τ means apparent (observable) optical depth, not normal optical depth. To obtain normal depth they multiplied it by sinB—the angle between the ring plane and the Uranus-Earth line. And than they multiplied it by the width of the ring. The better way is to integrate, because τ is not necessary constant. See refs 8, 15, 21. dePater article has other inaccuracies— their formular (4) (and procedure described there) is wrong. Ruslik ( talk) 09:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to trogon. I've been working on it on and off for a while and another set of eyes is very welcome. I notice that you changed one of my citations to use the cite template. Could I draw your attention to WP:CITE's mention of citation templates, which suggests that "editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus." In bold no less. I personally abhor the cite templates and would prefer the article not to change, or to use both. If you think the article should be changed please start a discussion on the talk page rather than changing any more. You may find a number of editors willing to go along with it (I usually get outvoted in WP:BIRD colabs) but if I am going to be the only one working on it in the future I'd rather it stayed like it is. Thanks! Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Add them, if you think that they are necessary. In my opinion, however, it is better to expand the text first. Ruslik ( talk) 05:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for converting the American crocodile article to all-lowercase common names. There is a lot of work to try and fix this common error, and it is great to see someone helping out in the name of grammar! StevePrutz ( talk) 15:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Supaman89,
The reason that (in my view) Mexico should be included in the list of Central American countries is the fact that the Mexican states of Chiapas, Tabasco, Campeche, Yucatán, and Quintana Roo are by geographic definition in Central America. Of course this doesn't mean the whole country is Central American. But this listing is not just used for political purposes.
From the standpoint of biology, it is very useful to view Central America separately from the rest of North America. Central America is a tropical region that shows a strong South American influence; it is part of the Neotropic ecozone. The rest of North America is subtropical or temperate, and is only weakly influenced by South America; it is in the Nearctic ecozone. For example, in the United States only three mammals (the Virginia Opossum, the Nine-banded Armadillo and the North American Porcupine) originated in South America, while dozens of species of Central American monkeys, cavimorph rodents, anteaters, sloths, armadillos and opossums are descended from South American immigrants. Since the above-mentioned Mexican states are part of this tropical region, their species show similar patterns and they should be included in listings of Central American species. It makes no sense to me to leave them out.
Do you disagree with this reasoning?. If so, could you explain why? WolfmanSF ( talk) 04:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that you edits weren't pretentious (cuz a lot of people are), and don't worry you're not offending anyone (why would you be?) is just it's a bit tiring (for a lot of us) that some people keep pushing Mexico into Central America even though it's not, just because if is different from Canada and the States. Anyways Mexico seems to bring much more attention that the other countries, and I think it is mostly motivated because of cultural reasons rather than geographical ones (I mean maps speak for themselves) but still some people just won't accept Mexico as "North American enough", so again, I'm glad you're not one of them. Supaman89 ( talk) 22:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey,the image you uploaded has been nominated for FP status at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rhea Just thought you'd like to know!
-- Fireaxe888 ( talk) 16:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Just an FYI in case you're wondering why your various otter edits were reverted: changing caps in mammal articles is a much argued debate and a huge can o' worms. It was headed to arbitration at one point but fizzled out. Just a head's up that you've walked into a hornet's nest. If you feel it is worthwhile to pursue, see Talk:List of bats#Taxonomy and the use of capital letters in common names for the latest background. Rgrds. -- Tombstone ( talk) 12:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
It is
WP:PRIM's directive to use capitals for species common names. -
UtherSRG
(talk)
02:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi WolfmanSF, just wanted to express my appreciation for your article on the Great American Interchange. It is very well-written, flows well and is very thorough and informative -- an exemplary Wikipedia article.
JamesHAndrews ( talk) 03:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
WolfmanSF, thanks for correcting the mistake in the Dismals Canyon article. That went unnoticed for at least six months, and I'm glad somebody knowledgeable passed by and noticed it. There might still be errors in the Arachnocampa page, as it lists Orfelia as a species of Arachnocampa. Jo7hs2 ( talk) 12:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your copyediting at Nestoridae, very much appreciated. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't know if it's displaying for you, but my browser (FF) says the img cannot be displayed because it contains errors. kwami ( talk) 08:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the caption read "modern horse" instead of "modern house"? Cheers, — Ruud 23:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Evolution of the horse and some other articles ( Equidae, Equus (genus), etc.) are getting some much needed attention. Care to join us? -- Una Smith ( talk) 05:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I like where you put the daggers on Equidae; could you do the same for Equus (genus)? -- Una Smith ( talk) 16:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the interesting ideas you put forward in the Younger Dryas impact, but I wonder if you could please add a citation from a suitable source to substantiate them. Thanks for your continuing contributions, I know you understand why it is important to stay on top of these things in 'scientific' articles. cheers Deconstructhis ( talk) 05:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the fixing problems with commons:File:Neptunian_rings_scheme.png. I completely forgot about it. Ruslik ( talk) 13:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry I was not able to post a response in the CA talk page, I was kinda busy. This "discussion" is just another one of the several that "anonymous" user has opened in the past. He is in fact not an anonymous user, but a sockpuppet of User:Corticopia, if you want more info just check my talk page. He is the only user in the whole Wikipedia and that through the years has tried to impose a false POV that Mexico is considered part of CA. The truth is that neither Mexicans, Latin Americans nor Central Americans consider Mexico a CA country.
However, that template is about CA topics, and Mexico is clearly not a CA country.
Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 19:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The main photograph image of Blood Falls has been added on 16:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC) on the Wikipedia:Picture peer review page to be proposed as a candidate for Wikipedia:Featured Pictures. See Wikipedia:Picture peer review/BloodFalls to give a comment or to support the proposal. Thanks — Shinkolobwe ( talk) 19:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
yeah, this is random and stalkerish, but trust me when I have a reason for asking: where do you edit from? (City and country would be nice, but whatever you feel comfortable telling is fine.) You can just shoot me an email or reply here. It's for a project I have to do involving wikipedia articles and editing patterns, nothing special, but I'll let you see it when I'm finished :) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 14:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thought you might be interested in the missing mammal species page as you have recently created quite a few of the missing species (if you didn't already know about it). It's not a guideline but generally mammal species common names are capitalised unless the word is following a hyphen, e.g. White-headed Capuchin. Some editors choose to ignore these rules and due to lack of consensus they are within their rights to do so. Another quick point, if you add the WP:MAM banner ({{Mammal|class=|importance=}}) to each of the pages you create it helps other editors find/assess/work on the newly created pages. Cheers, Jack ( talk) 08:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, hasn't written Polish article on this rodent yet :) But this can spur me to do so - so please, keep interwiki. Lukasz Lukomski ( talk) 00:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Wolfman, I really appreciate your edits, but I wanted to point out that moving an article involves moving an article using the move tab at the top and not copying and pasting. Moving preserves the revision history. (Re: Anderson's rice rat). -- Aranae ( talk) 22:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Wolfman. I have been watching your edits with much appreciation. WP:Rodents is now active. Right now, our numbers are a bit small and about half the participants are interested in rodents as pets. It would be great to have you join, neither Ucucha nor I are editing as frequently as we used to and it wold be nice if folks knew who to go to for expertise. If your knowledge is mostly Neotropical feel free to indicate that. -- Aranae ( talk) 22:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
...for your help with the moles and relatives. Chrisrus ( talk) 00:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you have already made many useful contributions to astrophysics-related articles. A couple of things that you may wish to consider:
Happy editing! -- Christopher Thomas 06:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
In the Quark matter article you added the statement that a star made mostly of quark matter is a quark star. I'm not entirely happy with the word "mostly" here: a hybrid star with 80% quark matter and 20% nuclear matter around it would still be a hybrid star, not a quark star. Many of the efforts to discover quark stars are based on their having a different kind or surface, not consisting of nuclear matter. I think it has to be 100% quark matter to be a quark star. Dark Formal 00:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I see your point, but I have some problems with your argument. I don't know the equation of state for quark matter, but it is not clear to me that there is much likelihood that a star could be 100.00...% quark matter. By way of analogy, no one believes that the surface of a neutron star is composed of neutron-degenerate matter; the pressure does not rise high enough to eliminate normal nuclear degenerate matter until you get some distance below the surface. Even if "the efforts to discover quark stars are based on their having a different kind or surface, not consisting of nuclear matter", that might well be based on practical considerations (i.e. that being that easiest way to adduce evidence for the existence of quark stars) rather than the belief that this is the way quark stars must be. Also, I haven't seen any references to or discussion of hybrid quark-degenerate matter/neutron-degenerate matter stars as a separate class of object (please correct me if I've missed something). If quark stars were real objects of observational study, splitting the category of all stars containing quark-degenerate matter into pure quark stars and various types of hybrid stars might be a very useful thing to do. At present, however, with quark stars being purely theoretical, it is not clear to me that such subdividing has much utility. I would be happy to defer to anyone with expertise in this area.
Thanks for referring me to this article. Reading it, I find that the authors' model does indeed have strange quark matter going right to the very surface. However, they also cite a "conventional view" (ref. 10, which I don't have online access to) of a tiny nuclear crust at the surface of the star. I suppose it would be OK to say that the star is essentially 100% quark matter in either case, as long as the possibility of that tiny nuclear crust is mentioned. Alternatively, one could say that the nuclear crust is separate from the quark star (if that is indeed the convention in the astrophysics community). What I wanted was a definition of a quark star inclusive enough to cover different models such as these. If you want to re-edit my changes, please go ahead. WolfmanSF ( talk) 02:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I have added a qualifying sentence after the offending revision. Please feel free to re-edit. WolfmanSF 17:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)WolfmanSF
That may have happened in the revert storm when we were dealing with about one vandal edit per minute. Your change is in the current version of the article. TimVickers 19:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Please read the logic for the capitalization on WP:BIRD. I'm not asking you to agree with it, but to leave it be. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Most of the material you removed was from this source, so I'd appreciate it if you read it to see if I misunderstood anything. Serendipod ous 06:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi WolfmanSF. I have long appreciated your efforts to add images to the articles concerning Saturn's rings. I wanted to point out, though, that the image you added here does not actually highlight the correct phenomenon. Those are "wakes" that arise from a single encounter between ring particles and Pan, not density waves that arise from a resonance condition. Density waves in Saturn's rings are so tightly wound that you can't actually see them as spirals (any image with good-enough resolution to see them has too narrow a field of view). Here are some good images that do feature density waves: [1] [2] [3] [4]. I don't know if any of them are already uploaded to WP. The first one might be particularly good, as it includes a bending wave (vertical corrugation) as well as a density wave (basically a compression wave), but all are nice. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 02:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Serendipodous. I don't want to get into an edit war with you over the placement of the Europa images, but to be honest I disagree with both of your recent assertions. "Image:PIA01092 - Evidence of Internal Activity on Europa.jpg" actually shows a much more detailed view of lineae, and gives a much better idea of their structure and mechanism of formation than does "Image:europa g1 true.jpg". The latter shows lineae primarily as albedo features, whereas the former at full size reveals their 'triple-band' structure, and shows that their formation is often associated with transverse faulting. Thus, from my perspective, the latter is at least as appropriate as the former for an illustration in the "lineae" section. The reverse order also has the advantage I pointed out earlier of maintaining a sequence of images showing progressively greater resolution. The captions for some of these images are longer than normal, but there is no harm in this; the information in them is specific to the images, and if it was moved to the text the impact would be lost. Regards, WolfmanSF ( talk) 16:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Wolfman,
Can you access the Science article to check if it's the source of the radii? Those were added anonymously.
Thanks, — kwami ( talk) 02:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Wolfman - thanks for your contribution to Windsor, Ontario, but can you provide a reference for it? There should be a source, especially for the date and the number of buildings that were affected. I grew up in Windsor and don't recall hearing about such a big fire, but then again I wasn't heavily concerned about the city's history at the time! Cheers, PKT ( talk) 13:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I am curious -- why did you make several revisions to the Peshtigo Fire page, eliminating the comet references? Because -- the problem is that while it is true that small meteorites may be cold to the touch when they impact, the alternative hypothesis was about comet fragments. Now while it is probably the case that the fire was not caused by fragments from 3D/Biela, that was listed as an alternative hypothesis -- because it is considered (by a minority) as a hypothesis. As an encyclopedia article, referencing a minority hypothesis that has multiple references is valid, in fact it is necessary. You have deleted this -- but worse, you deleted the references to this alternate hypothesis. Please respond on my discussion page -- unfortunately it may be necessary to revert your changes. SunSw0rd ( talk) 14:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I am curious as the "enthusiastic" use of the Dagger symbol in taxoboxes. I would think that a Dagger at the taxon level which is extinct , be it Species, family, order, what have you, would be enough to show that all taxa below that level are extinct. It seems rather redundant to have daggers all the way down from an order to the species. Is there a wikipolicy I should refer to regarding the dagger use?-- Kevmin ( talk) 00:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Flex Flint ( talk) 15:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Why did you shift all of the pictures to the right of the page and re-align them? Some pictures were best left on the left, and others on the right. It looked better and flowed better with the article. Thanks, and maybe you could look into fixing that. Thanks. Ssmercedes18 ( talk) 00:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
When I made this edit including the word kinetic, I had indeed forgotten that it is the sum of potential and kinetic energy that are being converted into heat, not the kinetic energy alone. Good catch! CosineKitty ( talk) 22:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you want to get this article up to FA? I'd be willing to help. Serendi pod ous 10:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for copy-edits. Do you think the article is ready for FAC? And do you want to be a conominator? Ruslik ( talk) 10:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
In that that definition τ means apparent (observable) optical depth, not normal optical depth. To obtain normal depth they multiplied it by sinB—the angle between the ring plane and the Uranus-Earth line. And than they multiplied it by the width of the ring. The better way is to integrate, because τ is not necessary constant. See refs 8, 15, 21. dePater article has other inaccuracies— their formular (4) (and procedure described there) is wrong. Ruslik ( talk) 09:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to trogon. I've been working on it on and off for a while and another set of eyes is very welcome. I notice that you changed one of my citations to use the cite template. Could I draw your attention to WP:CITE's mention of citation templates, which suggests that "editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus." In bold no less. I personally abhor the cite templates and would prefer the article not to change, or to use both. If you think the article should be changed please start a discussion on the talk page rather than changing any more. You may find a number of editors willing to go along with it (I usually get outvoted in WP:BIRD colabs) but if I am going to be the only one working on it in the future I'd rather it stayed like it is. Thanks! Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Add them, if you think that they are necessary. In my opinion, however, it is better to expand the text first. Ruslik ( talk) 05:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for converting the American crocodile article to all-lowercase common names. There is a lot of work to try and fix this common error, and it is great to see someone helping out in the name of grammar! StevePrutz ( talk) 15:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Supaman89,
The reason that (in my view) Mexico should be included in the list of Central American countries is the fact that the Mexican states of Chiapas, Tabasco, Campeche, Yucatán, and Quintana Roo are by geographic definition in Central America. Of course this doesn't mean the whole country is Central American. But this listing is not just used for political purposes.
From the standpoint of biology, it is very useful to view Central America separately from the rest of North America. Central America is a tropical region that shows a strong South American influence; it is part of the Neotropic ecozone. The rest of North America is subtropical or temperate, and is only weakly influenced by South America; it is in the Nearctic ecozone. For example, in the United States only three mammals (the Virginia Opossum, the Nine-banded Armadillo and the North American Porcupine) originated in South America, while dozens of species of Central American monkeys, cavimorph rodents, anteaters, sloths, armadillos and opossums are descended from South American immigrants. Since the above-mentioned Mexican states are part of this tropical region, their species show similar patterns and they should be included in listings of Central American species. It makes no sense to me to leave them out.
Do you disagree with this reasoning?. If so, could you explain why? WolfmanSF ( talk) 04:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that you edits weren't pretentious (cuz a lot of people are), and don't worry you're not offending anyone (why would you be?) is just it's a bit tiring (for a lot of us) that some people keep pushing Mexico into Central America even though it's not, just because if is different from Canada and the States. Anyways Mexico seems to bring much more attention that the other countries, and I think it is mostly motivated because of cultural reasons rather than geographical ones (I mean maps speak for themselves) but still some people just won't accept Mexico as "North American enough", so again, I'm glad you're not one of them. Supaman89 ( talk) 22:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey,the image you uploaded has been nominated for FP status at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rhea Just thought you'd like to know!
-- Fireaxe888 ( talk) 16:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Just an FYI in case you're wondering why your various otter edits were reverted: changing caps in mammal articles is a much argued debate and a huge can o' worms. It was headed to arbitration at one point but fizzled out. Just a head's up that you've walked into a hornet's nest. If you feel it is worthwhile to pursue, see Talk:List of bats#Taxonomy and the use of capital letters in common names for the latest background. Rgrds. -- Tombstone ( talk) 12:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
It is
WP:PRIM's directive to use capitals for species common names. -
UtherSRG
(talk)
02:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi WolfmanSF, just wanted to express my appreciation for your article on the Great American Interchange. It is very well-written, flows well and is very thorough and informative -- an exemplary Wikipedia article.
JamesHAndrews ( talk) 03:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
WolfmanSF, thanks for correcting the mistake in the Dismals Canyon article. That went unnoticed for at least six months, and I'm glad somebody knowledgeable passed by and noticed it. There might still be errors in the Arachnocampa page, as it lists Orfelia as a species of Arachnocampa. Jo7hs2 ( talk) 12:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your copyediting at Nestoridae, very much appreciated. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't know if it's displaying for you, but my browser (FF) says the img cannot be displayed because it contains errors. kwami ( talk) 08:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the caption read "modern horse" instead of "modern house"? Cheers, — Ruud 23:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Evolution of the horse and some other articles ( Equidae, Equus (genus), etc.) are getting some much needed attention. Care to join us? -- Una Smith ( talk) 05:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I like where you put the daggers on Equidae; could you do the same for Equus (genus)? -- Una Smith ( talk) 16:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the interesting ideas you put forward in the Younger Dryas impact, but I wonder if you could please add a citation from a suitable source to substantiate them. Thanks for your continuing contributions, I know you understand why it is important to stay on top of these things in 'scientific' articles. cheers Deconstructhis ( talk) 05:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the fixing problems with commons:File:Neptunian_rings_scheme.png. I completely forgot about it. Ruslik ( talk) 13:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry I was not able to post a response in the CA talk page, I was kinda busy. This "discussion" is just another one of the several that "anonymous" user has opened in the past. He is in fact not an anonymous user, but a sockpuppet of User:Corticopia, if you want more info just check my talk page. He is the only user in the whole Wikipedia and that through the years has tried to impose a false POV that Mexico is considered part of CA. The truth is that neither Mexicans, Latin Americans nor Central Americans consider Mexico a CA country.
However, that template is about CA topics, and Mexico is clearly not a CA country.
Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 19:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The main photograph image of Blood Falls has been added on 16:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC) on the Wikipedia:Picture peer review page to be proposed as a candidate for Wikipedia:Featured Pictures. See Wikipedia:Picture peer review/BloodFalls to give a comment or to support the proposal. Thanks — Shinkolobwe ( talk) 19:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
yeah, this is random and stalkerish, but trust me when I have a reason for asking: where do you edit from? (City and country would be nice, but whatever you feel comfortable telling is fine.) You can just shoot me an email or reply here. It's for a project I have to do involving wikipedia articles and editing patterns, nothing special, but I'll let you see it when I'm finished :) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 14:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thought you might be interested in the missing mammal species page as you have recently created quite a few of the missing species (if you didn't already know about it). It's not a guideline but generally mammal species common names are capitalised unless the word is following a hyphen, e.g. White-headed Capuchin. Some editors choose to ignore these rules and due to lack of consensus they are within their rights to do so. Another quick point, if you add the WP:MAM banner ({{Mammal|class=|importance=}}) to each of the pages you create it helps other editors find/assess/work on the newly created pages. Cheers, Jack ( talk) 08:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, hasn't written Polish article on this rodent yet :) But this can spur me to do so - so please, keep interwiki. Lukasz Lukomski ( talk) 00:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Wolfman, I really appreciate your edits, but I wanted to point out that moving an article involves moving an article using the move tab at the top and not copying and pasting. Moving preserves the revision history. (Re: Anderson's rice rat). -- Aranae ( talk) 22:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Wolfman. I have been watching your edits with much appreciation. WP:Rodents is now active. Right now, our numbers are a bit small and about half the participants are interested in rodents as pets. It would be great to have you join, neither Ucucha nor I are editing as frequently as we used to and it wold be nice if folks knew who to go to for expertise. If your knowledge is mostly Neotropical feel free to indicate that. -- Aranae ( talk) 22:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
...for your help with the moles and relatives. Chrisrus ( talk) 00:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)