Thanks for the explanation. Are there four reliable online sources you would suggest? Or do I need to go to the library? And if so, do you have suggestions there?
HCA has been identified as an
Awesome Wikipedian, Cheers, |
The Fauna Barnstar | ||
For your excellent work on Herpetology-related articles. The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC) |
Awesome, thanks!
I saw your report at WP:AIV. I have created Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sharry99. If you are confident of the existence of other socks of this editor that are already blocked, you could add them to the category, per instructions at the top of the page. This is handy for record-keeping, and can form part of the evidence in future sock cases. EdJohnston ( talk) 14:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 23:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Science lovers wanted! | |
---|---|
Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah ( talk) 19:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi this article is really in trouble, but with huge interest in terms of pageviews, apparently a single-celled creature which propels itself (apparently) with four flagella. Wondering if you might point us to better sources. It was in the news recently with a (possibly hyped?) story about how it is one of Earth's oldest living organisms, possibly an ancestor to humans and evolutionary clue, and lived only in a lake in Norway (which we originally thought was Lake As but we think we've got the lake down now via redirect). If you have free time to help we'd be grateful, thanx.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 11:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I reported an ip for making a BLP, on WP:ANI , he mentions your name as one of two people that have reverted him | Check here for it, it's labeled as "Legal Threat or Now" . Perhaps you can shed more light on it. Looks like it may be Australia's "Snake Man " himself based on his edits
"....We are all Kosh...." <-Babylon-5-> 17:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you understood my edit here: [1] I didn't add those terms; instead, what I did was move that paragraph from below in order to form a more logical narrative flow. If you believe "Neither term is used correctly", then that paragraph should be deleted. Your reversion here: [2] simply moved it back (and removed link: evolutionary relay). ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 ( talk) 08:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, my bad, I guess I didn't look thoroughly enough. Anyhow, I've edited it again to correct the parallel evolution example and remove the "evolutionary relay" bit, since the term seems to be almost never used and apparently means something quite different. HCA ( talk) 11:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for resolving problems with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing#Euthanasia. David F ( talk) 23:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
You deleted this out-of-process some time back. I'm not utterly convinced that it doesn't meet notability requirements, so I'm putting it through AFD. You are of course welcome to comment. Mangoe ( talk) 16:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm somewhat puzzled by
this and other reptile reverts where you've used a similar argument (only speaking about the taxonomy; not other things you reverted there). Looking at
WP:AAR#Taxonomy, it is clear that a specific source only has been chosen for higher level taxonomy (the infrequently updated and by now highly out-of-date ITIS). At lower levels none has been chosen. That leads to one of the core wikipedia policies, WP:NPOV (e.g., subsections "
Good research" and "
Balance"). We now have
clear evidence that Rhacodactylus sensu lato is problematic, resulting in the validation of Correlophus. Publications presenting comparable evidence for the opposite view (all in Rhacodactylus) are lacking. I note that the lead author of the 2012 paper is Bauer, the top authority on this group, and that the single most complete online database (reptile-database.org) has followed the split too. The recently described C. belepensis would present an additional problem if sticking with one genus. We'd have to disregard it entirely; adding it as the only species of Correlophus would be
WP:OR (no one has suggested the genus is monotypic) and adding it as R. belepensis would also be WP:OR (no authority has placed it in Rhacodactylus).
In summary, I'm struggling to find any good argument for keeping the two genera together. While
user:Chevyrumble55 certainly should have provided a source when he made the changes, based on your edit summary it appears you were aware of the source, but disregarded it. However, beware that Chevyrumble55 made a spelling mistake: Corellophus instead of the correct Correlophus. If you insist on preserving the outdated taxonomy, please note that Chevyrumble55 removed the two Correlophus (chahoua+ciliatus) from the species list in
Rhacodactylus, and modified
Diplodactylinae too. I'll leave possible edits dealing with these taxonomic issues to you and other editors. Regards,
212.10.95.175 (
talk) 19:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm no expert on reptiles. I'm trying to improve some of the articles, and it helps to have someone make sure I don't make a bad edit. Please check out my revision. Leadwind ( talk) 23:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your love of snakes and substantial authorship of the Burmese Python article.
Could you find it in your heart to allow the article to mention that Burmese pythons are snakes that grow quickly to large size, and have proven capable of attacking and seriously injuring or killing infants, children, and adult humans (including experienced snake handlers) as ably detailed by the Humane Society report, Humane Society. "Constrictor Snake Attacks" (PDF).?
This factual information will not help sell any snakes, but it is salient to unsophisticated potential snake buyers who rely on Wikipedia for useful information. Its omission leaves the article reading like sales talk for buying one of these wild animals, which the article describes as attractive and popular.
To underscore the rarity of lengths over 5 metres, might Wikipedia's Burmese python article mention this 2013 find, which by subtraction reveals that the previous record in Florida was less than 17 feet long, and thus not much in excess of 5 metres / 16.4 feet, if at all?
Good evening:
Please allow me to share an article with you. Maybe you will find it interesting:
http://www.naturapop.com/home/southern-limit-of-the-distribution-of-the-green-anaconda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.2.207.74 ( talk) 00:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you very much, I fixed it.
After long search of Matlab codes for the Hill-type muscle model, I failed to find it. So I made it by myself, and I am sharing the codes in my website. I wish many Biomechanics researchers can take a benefit from them. Thank you again, and have a nice day~ -Mok- Yunyoungmok ( talk) 17:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC) |
I didn't know whether Cuvier's dwarf caiman could be called "Cuvier's wedge head caiman" so I consulted Google and found this, which gives wedge head but does not mention Cuvier. However that is not a reliable source and I thought this one much better. It gives common names "Dwarf Caiman, Cuvier’s Caiman, Smooth Fronted Caiman, Musky Caiman" and does not mention "Cuvier's wedge head caiman". The Reptile Database does not mention it either. So I propose to change the sentence to include several vernacular names and think you should provide a reference if you want wedge head to be included. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 05:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to open talks about the last revision you reverted. I acknowledge you have been active in the terrestrial locomotion article. But I will appreciate it if you explain the grounds for reverting that edit. Thank you. Mre env ( talk) 12:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure how familiar you are with publications in Constructal Law and Theory. Have you read the paper [3]. On the matter of being called "fringe" it may be a misconception with "new". Mre env ( talk) 20:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I am not familiar with the peer-review process of that periodical. At this point, I respect your assessment for Wikipedia. Mre env ( talk) 20:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
On List of examples of convergent evolution you thinks not related species looking the same is mimicry, not convergence. The information and ref is from utexas.edu courses on Convergent Evolution, that describes it as Convergent Evolution, not mimicry. If it was only behavior HCA would be correct, but this DNA that give these species the same look. Asking you not to undo edits, with correct ref links.
From http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/Convergence.html The University of Texas at Austin, Convergent Evolution. by Eric R. Pianka
Telecine Guy 21:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I guess you saw that I posted a note on JWCornett's page as he'd been adding refs to books by J.W. Cornett on various pages. Do you think these should all be reverted? I ask because he also added facts and cited them from these sources; a bit flaky, but not purely advertising, I think.
BTW you might be interested in the new WikiProject Animal Anatomy. Or maybe not. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 15:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm already on Animal Anatomy, since it overlaps so much with the Organismal Biomechanics project, though I've not had much time for substantial editing lately. Definitely a good idea - a lot of the anatomical articles are extremely human-centric. HCA ( talk) 15:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
SaintGirons
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I've just removed stuff promoting him from a couple of articles and I see you have also. You might be interested in the discussion at [3] which led to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mak Yuree. Dougweller ( talk) 19:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
You wrote /info/en/?search=Talk:Human_body "There's oxygen in a lot of solid stuff in the human body" . You do know the molecule of water? Two hydrogen atoms for every oxygen molecule? So hydrogen would be most of the body with a 2 to 1 ratio. /info/en/?search=Body_water#In_humans . -- Mark v1.0 ( talk) 19:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello HCA, I noticed you removed my yellow rat snake pic. I didn’t understand the reason why? If you Google “Florida rat snake,” there are several of the same snakes pictured there??? It is a different type, subspecies. I’m no expert on snakes, but I can match my photo with those and tell no difference. Please explain. Thanks! GEOGOZZ GEOGOZZ ( talk) 23:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Your photo is of a Florida yellow rat snake Pantherophis_alleghaniensis, but you put the photo on the page of Spilotes pullatus, the tiger rat snake of South & Central America. HCA ( talk) 00:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I just wrote a quick fix for the second lead paragraph of muscle contraction. It's posted in Talk:Muscle contraction. Please take a look and let me know what you think. It is not meant to be permanent but a quick fix to the current second lead paragraph. Cheers danielkueh ( talk) 00:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Why have you deleted the text "neither ray-finned nor lobe-finned fish" twice? If you're going to delete the text, you ought to at least read the citation, since it backs up the deleted text. It's kind of sloppy to delete the text, but leave the citation in place. (unsigned)
for the meaning of extant. didn't know. -- Pjacquot ( talk) 07:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I noticed your comment on my article renaming suggestion at Talk:Python regius. I would like to make you aware of the other recent similar move requests that I haved filed, in case you may have valuable comments on those. The currently open ones can be found listed at WP:RMCD, and one that I withdrew can be found at Talk:Vipera palaestinae. — BarrelProof ( talk) 01:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I think you might be able to help at Talk:Pantherophis. — BarrelProof ( talk) 18:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Another issue that you may be able to help with is discussed at Talk:Gaboon viper#Annoying "venomous viper". — BarrelProof ( talk) 06:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi HCA, you reverted my addition of some ball python care sheets on the Python Regius page this week. I'm curious why these were rejected as not a "how to" guide while most of the other resources under this section are also care sheets? Thanks! If this wasn't the appropriate way to ask, I apologize, but I didn't know how else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jplehmann ( talk • contribs) 11:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Rana vs Lithobates". 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 21 September 2015.
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. 10:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I was surprised to find that Insect flight does not have its own article. I note from the article history that Insect flight was redirected to Insect wing back in 2012 (with a bit of an edit-war, it seems). This does seem quite a curious choice - a wing is an anatomical structure which (among other things, like advertising and mechanical protection) supports flight, so the topics are logically separate; and if we're prepared to admit that flight is the primary function, then flight would be the natural parent article. The material on flight is quite long (it was over 27,000 bytes at the time of merge), so it would make complete sense as a separate article, where at present it is a remarkably long and technical subsection, covering the mathematics of aerodynamics which can scarcely be argued to be an aspect of anatomy. All in all, I'd instantly split the section off as its own article, but I'd be curious to know the reasoning for the merge, which does not (at first glance) seem to have been discussed much. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Rana vs Lithobates, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rana vs Lithobates, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.
As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 13:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Er I think you got this wrong. My edit was absolutely fine. It was me who created squatting position in the first place so im not sure why I would vandalise "my" own article.-- Penbat ( talk) 17:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Based on your comment, I think you reverted the wrong edit of Boa constrictor. — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Rather than just reverting an edit, can I suggest that if you identify a problem you also fix it? You left behind an ambiguous link, where you clearly new what needed to be done. PS: Wavelet analysis is a special case of vector decomposition, but I agree that linking to wavelet analysis (or wavelet transform is better. Klbrain ( talk) 22:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Your page on Raymond Hoser is nothing more than hate and rubbish. Edits correcting the lies are reversed and your page alleges criminality by Hoser, for which he was cleared more than a year ago. Either delete the page or fix it. We know who you are and you will be outed as a liar if need be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.110.195 ( talk) 09:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry you are having hassles making the move request. I tried move requesting an article once before and vowed I would never do it again! Best of luck, and Happy New Year.DrChrissy (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Just a heads up the user you recently warned over the Raymond Hoser page is also vandalising other pages. The Myuchelys page was section blanked and had other edits done. It is not the first time this user ( talk) has been warned. The Myuchelys page was protected for 6 months last year because of this persons edits. He has deleted your comments from his talk page, i have added a warning for vandalism. His contributions : 114.77.110.195 also uses 101.170.213.64. It may come to a point where more is needed. Faendalimas talk 18:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I have one question for you; are there indigo snakes found in North Carolina? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.12.38 ( talk) 23:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:
Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for your work defending the Wiki. I'm having a discussion with an IP on garum and would be glad of your opinion there. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 05:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Hallo HCA,
I'm an author of the German wikipedia and have used the great image named Lungs of Protopterus dolloi.JPG ( Link) for our article about the notochord.
The file was uploaded by an user named mokele, which seems to be a former name of you.
However, it is a pity that this very useful picture is only available with its English labeling. Are you able to upload a version without labeling or just with numbers? It would fit then so much better into any non-English-wikipedia.
Best wishes, dreisam 18:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreisam ( talk • contribs)
Hey HCA!
I see you undid my revisions on Gait Analysis. I understand if you are against chiropractic and OMT, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but if I were to re-include my addition with sources would that constitute a good edit? Just because it is your belief that chiropractic and OMT is a pseudoscience doesn't mean there isn't scientific data about the fundamentals of these practices that have proven results. It's a topic for another time, but chiropractic of the last 20 years is nothing like the docs who have been in practice longer than that. We are very focused on biomechanics and restoring active and passive ranges of motion, and gait analysis is one of the key systems of diagnosis DCs and DOs employ. There are studies that show the positive effects of chiropractic and osteopathic manipulations on the sacro-iliac joints to improve instances of dyskinesia in the pelvis. If I were to include them in a future edit, undoubtedly they should be allowed? In the meantime I have updated the page again. I have included four different studies that show improvement in gait after OMT or adjusting, so certainly these will suffice as good sources that show DCs and DOs utilize gait analysis heavily (regardless of whether or not you agree with them as professions in the first place).
Semmendinger ( talk) 16:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi HCA, I noticed that you deleted a posting from an IP address at Talk:Wing. We both recognize how inappropriate both the form an content of that posting was for a talk page. However, I wonder whether deleting it was appropriate. I would have chosen to respond to it, explaining the rules of Wikipedia. Your thoughts? I'll watch this page. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi HCA,
I'm curious why you reverted the TaxonBar from the Coelacanth page? I think having the links to standard taxonomic identifiers is useful for linking observations about species together. I recognize that adding taxonomic identifiers to all species pages has been mildly controversial, but my impression is that adding the TaxonBar to species pages on case by case basis is acceptable. For example, Arabidopsis thaliana has it. Best, Momeara ( talk) 21:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
This is in response to a reversion you made in the wiki article about birds hovering.
Video of a white tailed kite performing at a show, hovering in still air during a demonstration, despite the relatively heavy tether attached to it's legs (the demonstration starts at 1:10 into the video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnbndA0Rjfg
I live in southern California and fly radio control gliders as a hobby. One of the locations I visit is Kite Hill, the location and nearby community named after the white tailed Kite. I have personally witnessed a Kite hovering against a slight tailwind (so technically hovering and flying backwards) for over 20 seconds. Normally the wind comes from the south, blowing up the hill, but in this case, the wind was coming from the north due to a "Santa Ana" condition. I assume that Kite was used to being oriented downhill, despite the tailwind condition. In near zero wind conditions, I've seen Kites hover for over 30 seconds.
I've also seen Osprey's at nearby Laguna Beach, also hovering in near zero wind conditions (no perceptible cross wind or updraft), but they normally only hover for a few seconds before diving. Unlike a Kite, the Ospreys apparently sight fish near the ocean surface during normal flight or partial hover, and my guess is they hover only long enough to get a fix on the fish and setup a dive. It appears they could hover for longer, as they have more than enough energy to dive underwater, use their wings to resurface out of the water and either fly away with a fish or fly back to their hunting altitude which is around 80 feet at this particular location.
In both cases, but more impressive with the Kites due to their longer hover times is that since they target a ground object during a hover, they remain nearly motionless relative to the ground despite any wind. Rcgldr ( talk) 07:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, User:Chiswick Chap and I will be working on Lizard for GA sometime soon. Would you like to join? We could use someone with experience in reptiles. LittleJerry ( talk) 16:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
Alex Shih Talk 00:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Edit to add: I understand why you corrected my edit. At first I was very confused about that piece of information on the BCI page.
TIA Crystalbamg ( talk) 06:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm working on a whole lot of evolution articles (and trying to get the more important ones to Good Article status, quite tricky with the historical ones as hardly anyone wants to review them). Flying and gliding animals is potentially quite an important article — you stated that "The evolution of flight is one of the most striking and demanding in animal evolution, and has attracted the attention of many prominent scientists and generated many theories", and added that they fossilize poorly and infrequently. I'd like to improve the referencing for the article, and wondered if you could suggest suitable sources, for instance for the Evolution and ecology and Biomechanics sections? It would be much appreciated. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 03:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind a comment here, but I've just read that article again and I felt the need to share my conclusion with someone - it's complete and utter bullshit from start to finish, isn't it? I can see why there might have been very little academic critique of it - because most people probably consider it as just too stupid to spend valuable time on. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 17:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Wow, came across your user page because of a discussion on an RM which made me want to check out the user page of what I perceived as an intelligent writer who really "gets" Wikipedia's accomplishments and goals. What I found was someone who has written and contributed a large amount of excellent pages on topics in your knowledge area. Thank you, nice work. Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I added a citation needed for the specific statement that, prior to 2013 DNA testing, coelacanths were believed to be transitional between fish and land animals (i.e. tetrapods), and removed the citation needed for the less specific statement coelacanths were believed to be transitional at some point in the past. This change was reverted. Why does the more specific (dated) statement in the DNA section not require a citation, but the less specific statement require one? If the specific statement about “prior to 2013” had a citation, we would not need another citation saying that coelacanths were once considered transitional. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Coelacanth&type=revision&diff=818436729&oldid=818346377 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D44:78F:60D4:1C6E:ADE0:3AA5 ( talk) 01:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Just to let you know, this edit was technically not made in good faith, as the IP is in a range being (ab)used by an IP-hopping vandal who editwars by inserting and reinserting erroneous data into articles, and appears to be wholly uninterested in discussing anything, to the point where the vandal may have reading comprehension problems.-- Mr Fink ( talk) 21:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, you win. I chose those colors for a reason. I don't like jarring contrasts. I will get to the changes soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonsqueezey ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, HCA. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Ten years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Organismal Biomechanics articles with anthropocentrism 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. Liz Read! Talk! 15:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Organismal Biomechanics articles needing attention 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. Liz Read! Talk! 15:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Organismal Biomechanics articles needing photos 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. Liz Read! Talk! 15:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The file File:Forcevelocity 2.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused graph, lowish-resolution, unclear encyclopedic use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 09:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Are there four reliable online sources you would suggest? Or do I need to go to the library? And if so, do you have suggestions there?
HCA has been identified as an
Awesome Wikipedian, Cheers, |
The Fauna Barnstar | ||
For your excellent work on Herpetology-related articles. The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC) |
Awesome, thanks!
I saw your report at WP:AIV. I have created Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sharry99. If you are confident of the existence of other socks of this editor that are already blocked, you could add them to the category, per instructions at the top of the page. This is handy for record-keeping, and can form part of the evidence in future sock cases. EdJohnston ( talk) 14:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 23:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Science lovers wanted! | |
---|---|
Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah ( talk) 19:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi this article is really in trouble, but with huge interest in terms of pageviews, apparently a single-celled creature which propels itself (apparently) with four flagella. Wondering if you might point us to better sources. It was in the news recently with a (possibly hyped?) story about how it is one of Earth's oldest living organisms, possibly an ancestor to humans and evolutionary clue, and lived only in a lake in Norway (which we originally thought was Lake As but we think we've got the lake down now via redirect). If you have free time to help we'd be grateful, thanx.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 11:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I reported an ip for making a BLP, on WP:ANI , he mentions your name as one of two people that have reverted him | Check here for it, it's labeled as "Legal Threat or Now" . Perhaps you can shed more light on it. Looks like it may be Australia's "Snake Man " himself based on his edits
"....We are all Kosh...." <-Babylon-5-> 17:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you understood my edit here: [1] I didn't add those terms; instead, what I did was move that paragraph from below in order to form a more logical narrative flow. If you believe "Neither term is used correctly", then that paragraph should be deleted. Your reversion here: [2] simply moved it back (and removed link: evolutionary relay). ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 ( talk) 08:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, my bad, I guess I didn't look thoroughly enough. Anyhow, I've edited it again to correct the parallel evolution example and remove the "evolutionary relay" bit, since the term seems to be almost never used and apparently means something quite different. HCA ( talk) 11:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for resolving problems with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing#Euthanasia. David F ( talk) 23:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
You deleted this out-of-process some time back. I'm not utterly convinced that it doesn't meet notability requirements, so I'm putting it through AFD. You are of course welcome to comment. Mangoe ( talk) 16:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm somewhat puzzled by
this and other reptile reverts where you've used a similar argument (only speaking about the taxonomy; not other things you reverted there). Looking at
WP:AAR#Taxonomy, it is clear that a specific source only has been chosen for higher level taxonomy (the infrequently updated and by now highly out-of-date ITIS). At lower levels none has been chosen. That leads to one of the core wikipedia policies, WP:NPOV (e.g., subsections "
Good research" and "
Balance"). We now have
clear evidence that Rhacodactylus sensu lato is problematic, resulting in the validation of Correlophus. Publications presenting comparable evidence for the opposite view (all in Rhacodactylus) are lacking. I note that the lead author of the 2012 paper is Bauer, the top authority on this group, and that the single most complete online database (reptile-database.org) has followed the split too. The recently described C. belepensis would present an additional problem if sticking with one genus. We'd have to disregard it entirely; adding it as the only species of Correlophus would be
WP:OR (no one has suggested the genus is monotypic) and adding it as R. belepensis would also be WP:OR (no authority has placed it in Rhacodactylus).
In summary, I'm struggling to find any good argument for keeping the two genera together. While
user:Chevyrumble55 certainly should have provided a source when he made the changes, based on your edit summary it appears you were aware of the source, but disregarded it. However, beware that Chevyrumble55 made a spelling mistake: Corellophus instead of the correct Correlophus. If you insist on preserving the outdated taxonomy, please note that Chevyrumble55 removed the two Correlophus (chahoua+ciliatus) from the species list in
Rhacodactylus, and modified
Diplodactylinae too. I'll leave possible edits dealing with these taxonomic issues to you and other editors. Regards,
212.10.95.175 (
talk) 19:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm no expert on reptiles. I'm trying to improve some of the articles, and it helps to have someone make sure I don't make a bad edit. Please check out my revision. Leadwind ( talk) 23:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your love of snakes and substantial authorship of the Burmese Python article.
Could you find it in your heart to allow the article to mention that Burmese pythons are snakes that grow quickly to large size, and have proven capable of attacking and seriously injuring or killing infants, children, and adult humans (including experienced snake handlers) as ably detailed by the Humane Society report, Humane Society. "Constrictor Snake Attacks" (PDF).?
This factual information will not help sell any snakes, but it is salient to unsophisticated potential snake buyers who rely on Wikipedia for useful information. Its omission leaves the article reading like sales talk for buying one of these wild animals, which the article describes as attractive and popular.
To underscore the rarity of lengths over 5 metres, might Wikipedia's Burmese python article mention this 2013 find, which by subtraction reveals that the previous record in Florida was less than 17 feet long, and thus not much in excess of 5 metres / 16.4 feet, if at all?
Good evening:
Please allow me to share an article with you. Maybe you will find it interesting:
http://www.naturapop.com/home/southern-limit-of-the-distribution-of-the-green-anaconda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.2.207.74 ( talk) 00:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you very much, I fixed it.
After long search of Matlab codes for the Hill-type muscle model, I failed to find it. So I made it by myself, and I am sharing the codes in my website. I wish many Biomechanics researchers can take a benefit from them. Thank you again, and have a nice day~ -Mok- Yunyoungmok ( talk) 17:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC) |
I didn't know whether Cuvier's dwarf caiman could be called "Cuvier's wedge head caiman" so I consulted Google and found this, which gives wedge head but does not mention Cuvier. However that is not a reliable source and I thought this one much better. It gives common names "Dwarf Caiman, Cuvier’s Caiman, Smooth Fronted Caiman, Musky Caiman" and does not mention "Cuvier's wedge head caiman". The Reptile Database does not mention it either. So I propose to change the sentence to include several vernacular names and think you should provide a reference if you want wedge head to be included. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 05:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to open talks about the last revision you reverted. I acknowledge you have been active in the terrestrial locomotion article. But I will appreciate it if you explain the grounds for reverting that edit. Thank you. Mre env ( talk) 12:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure how familiar you are with publications in Constructal Law and Theory. Have you read the paper [3]. On the matter of being called "fringe" it may be a misconception with "new". Mre env ( talk) 20:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I am not familiar with the peer-review process of that periodical. At this point, I respect your assessment for Wikipedia. Mre env ( talk) 20:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
On List of examples of convergent evolution you thinks not related species looking the same is mimicry, not convergence. The information and ref is from utexas.edu courses on Convergent Evolution, that describes it as Convergent Evolution, not mimicry. If it was only behavior HCA would be correct, but this DNA that give these species the same look. Asking you not to undo edits, with correct ref links.
From http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/Convergence.html The University of Texas at Austin, Convergent Evolution. by Eric R. Pianka
Telecine Guy 21:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I guess you saw that I posted a note on JWCornett's page as he'd been adding refs to books by J.W. Cornett on various pages. Do you think these should all be reverted? I ask because he also added facts and cited them from these sources; a bit flaky, but not purely advertising, I think.
BTW you might be interested in the new WikiProject Animal Anatomy. Or maybe not. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 15:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm already on Animal Anatomy, since it overlaps so much with the Organismal Biomechanics project, though I've not had much time for substantial editing lately. Definitely a good idea - a lot of the anatomical articles are extremely human-centric. HCA ( talk) 15:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
SaintGirons
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I've just removed stuff promoting him from a couple of articles and I see you have also. You might be interested in the discussion at [3] which led to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mak Yuree. Dougweller ( talk) 19:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
You wrote /info/en/?search=Talk:Human_body "There's oxygen in a lot of solid stuff in the human body" . You do know the molecule of water? Two hydrogen atoms for every oxygen molecule? So hydrogen would be most of the body with a 2 to 1 ratio. /info/en/?search=Body_water#In_humans . -- Mark v1.0 ( talk) 19:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello HCA, I noticed you removed my yellow rat snake pic. I didn’t understand the reason why? If you Google “Florida rat snake,” there are several of the same snakes pictured there??? It is a different type, subspecies. I’m no expert on snakes, but I can match my photo with those and tell no difference. Please explain. Thanks! GEOGOZZ GEOGOZZ ( talk) 23:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Your photo is of a Florida yellow rat snake Pantherophis_alleghaniensis, but you put the photo on the page of Spilotes pullatus, the tiger rat snake of South & Central America. HCA ( talk) 00:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I just wrote a quick fix for the second lead paragraph of muscle contraction. It's posted in Talk:Muscle contraction. Please take a look and let me know what you think. It is not meant to be permanent but a quick fix to the current second lead paragraph. Cheers danielkueh ( talk) 00:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Why have you deleted the text "neither ray-finned nor lobe-finned fish" twice? If you're going to delete the text, you ought to at least read the citation, since it backs up the deleted text. It's kind of sloppy to delete the text, but leave the citation in place. (unsigned)
for the meaning of extant. didn't know. -- Pjacquot ( talk) 07:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I noticed your comment on my article renaming suggestion at Talk:Python regius. I would like to make you aware of the other recent similar move requests that I haved filed, in case you may have valuable comments on those. The currently open ones can be found listed at WP:RMCD, and one that I withdrew can be found at Talk:Vipera palaestinae. — BarrelProof ( talk) 01:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I think you might be able to help at Talk:Pantherophis. — BarrelProof ( talk) 18:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Another issue that you may be able to help with is discussed at Talk:Gaboon viper#Annoying "venomous viper". — BarrelProof ( talk) 06:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi HCA, you reverted my addition of some ball python care sheets on the Python Regius page this week. I'm curious why these were rejected as not a "how to" guide while most of the other resources under this section are also care sheets? Thanks! If this wasn't the appropriate way to ask, I apologize, but I didn't know how else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jplehmann ( talk • contribs) 11:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Rana vs Lithobates". 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 21 September 2015.
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. 10:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I was surprised to find that Insect flight does not have its own article. I note from the article history that Insect flight was redirected to Insect wing back in 2012 (with a bit of an edit-war, it seems). This does seem quite a curious choice - a wing is an anatomical structure which (among other things, like advertising and mechanical protection) supports flight, so the topics are logically separate; and if we're prepared to admit that flight is the primary function, then flight would be the natural parent article. The material on flight is quite long (it was over 27,000 bytes at the time of merge), so it would make complete sense as a separate article, where at present it is a remarkably long and technical subsection, covering the mathematics of aerodynamics which can scarcely be argued to be an aspect of anatomy. All in all, I'd instantly split the section off as its own article, but I'd be curious to know the reasoning for the merge, which does not (at first glance) seem to have been discussed much. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Rana vs Lithobates, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rana vs Lithobates, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.
As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 13:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Er I think you got this wrong. My edit was absolutely fine. It was me who created squatting position in the first place so im not sure why I would vandalise "my" own article.-- Penbat ( talk) 17:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Based on your comment, I think you reverted the wrong edit of Boa constrictor. — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Rather than just reverting an edit, can I suggest that if you identify a problem you also fix it? You left behind an ambiguous link, where you clearly new what needed to be done. PS: Wavelet analysis is a special case of vector decomposition, but I agree that linking to wavelet analysis (or wavelet transform is better. Klbrain ( talk) 22:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Your page on Raymond Hoser is nothing more than hate and rubbish. Edits correcting the lies are reversed and your page alleges criminality by Hoser, for which he was cleared more than a year ago. Either delete the page or fix it. We know who you are and you will be outed as a liar if need be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.110.195 ( talk) 09:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry you are having hassles making the move request. I tried move requesting an article once before and vowed I would never do it again! Best of luck, and Happy New Year.DrChrissy (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Just a heads up the user you recently warned over the Raymond Hoser page is also vandalising other pages. The Myuchelys page was section blanked and had other edits done. It is not the first time this user ( talk) has been warned. The Myuchelys page was protected for 6 months last year because of this persons edits. He has deleted your comments from his talk page, i have added a warning for vandalism. His contributions : 114.77.110.195 also uses 101.170.213.64. It may come to a point where more is needed. Faendalimas talk 18:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I have one question for you; are there indigo snakes found in North Carolina? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.12.38 ( talk) 23:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:
Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for your work defending the Wiki. I'm having a discussion with an IP on garum and would be glad of your opinion there. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 05:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Hallo HCA,
I'm an author of the German wikipedia and have used the great image named Lungs of Protopterus dolloi.JPG ( Link) for our article about the notochord.
The file was uploaded by an user named mokele, which seems to be a former name of you.
However, it is a pity that this very useful picture is only available with its English labeling. Are you able to upload a version without labeling or just with numbers? It would fit then so much better into any non-English-wikipedia.
Best wishes, dreisam 18:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreisam ( talk • contribs)
Hey HCA!
I see you undid my revisions on Gait Analysis. I understand if you are against chiropractic and OMT, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but if I were to re-include my addition with sources would that constitute a good edit? Just because it is your belief that chiropractic and OMT is a pseudoscience doesn't mean there isn't scientific data about the fundamentals of these practices that have proven results. It's a topic for another time, but chiropractic of the last 20 years is nothing like the docs who have been in practice longer than that. We are very focused on biomechanics and restoring active and passive ranges of motion, and gait analysis is one of the key systems of diagnosis DCs and DOs employ. There are studies that show the positive effects of chiropractic and osteopathic manipulations on the sacro-iliac joints to improve instances of dyskinesia in the pelvis. If I were to include them in a future edit, undoubtedly they should be allowed? In the meantime I have updated the page again. I have included four different studies that show improvement in gait after OMT or adjusting, so certainly these will suffice as good sources that show DCs and DOs utilize gait analysis heavily (regardless of whether or not you agree with them as professions in the first place).
Semmendinger ( talk) 16:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi HCA, I noticed that you deleted a posting from an IP address at Talk:Wing. We both recognize how inappropriate both the form an content of that posting was for a talk page. However, I wonder whether deleting it was appropriate. I would have chosen to respond to it, explaining the rules of Wikipedia. Your thoughts? I'll watch this page. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi HCA,
I'm curious why you reverted the TaxonBar from the Coelacanth page? I think having the links to standard taxonomic identifiers is useful for linking observations about species together. I recognize that adding taxonomic identifiers to all species pages has been mildly controversial, but my impression is that adding the TaxonBar to species pages on case by case basis is acceptable. For example, Arabidopsis thaliana has it. Best, Momeara ( talk) 21:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
This is in response to a reversion you made in the wiki article about birds hovering.
Video of a white tailed kite performing at a show, hovering in still air during a demonstration, despite the relatively heavy tether attached to it's legs (the demonstration starts at 1:10 into the video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnbndA0Rjfg
I live in southern California and fly radio control gliders as a hobby. One of the locations I visit is Kite Hill, the location and nearby community named after the white tailed Kite. I have personally witnessed a Kite hovering against a slight tailwind (so technically hovering and flying backwards) for over 20 seconds. Normally the wind comes from the south, blowing up the hill, but in this case, the wind was coming from the north due to a "Santa Ana" condition. I assume that Kite was used to being oriented downhill, despite the tailwind condition. In near zero wind conditions, I've seen Kites hover for over 30 seconds.
I've also seen Osprey's at nearby Laguna Beach, also hovering in near zero wind conditions (no perceptible cross wind or updraft), but they normally only hover for a few seconds before diving. Unlike a Kite, the Ospreys apparently sight fish near the ocean surface during normal flight or partial hover, and my guess is they hover only long enough to get a fix on the fish and setup a dive. It appears they could hover for longer, as they have more than enough energy to dive underwater, use their wings to resurface out of the water and either fly away with a fish or fly back to their hunting altitude which is around 80 feet at this particular location.
In both cases, but more impressive with the Kites due to their longer hover times is that since they target a ground object during a hover, they remain nearly motionless relative to the ground despite any wind. Rcgldr ( talk) 07:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, User:Chiswick Chap and I will be working on Lizard for GA sometime soon. Would you like to join? We could use someone with experience in reptiles. LittleJerry ( talk) 16:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
Alex Shih Talk 00:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Edit to add: I understand why you corrected my edit. At first I was very confused about that piece of information on the BCI page.
TIA Crystalbamg ( talk) 06:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm working on a whole lot of evolution articles (and trying to get the more important ones to Good Article status, quite tricky with the historical ones as hardly anyone wants to review them). Flying and gliding animals is potentially quite an important article — you stated that "The evolution of flight is one of the most striking and demanding in animal evolution, and has attracted the attention of many prominent scientists and generated many theories", and added that they fossilize poorly and infrequently. I'd like to improve the referencing for the article, and wondered if you could suggest suitable sources, for instance for the Evolution and ecology and Biomechanics sections? It would be much appreciated. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 03:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind a comment here, but I've just read that article again and I felt the need to share my conclusion with someone - it's complete and utter bullshit from start to finish, isn't it? I can see why there might have been very little academic critique of it - because most people probably consider it as just too stupid to spend valuable time on. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 17:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Wow, came across your user page because of a discussion on an RM which made me want to check out the user page of what I perceived as an intelligent writer who really "gets" Wikipedia's accomplishments and goals. What I found was someone who has written and contributed a large amount of excellent pages on topics in your knowledge area. Thank you, nice work. Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I added a citation needed for the specific statement that, prior to 2013 DNA testing, coelacanths were believed to be transitional between fish and land animals (i.e. tetrapods), and removed the citation needed for the less specific statement coelacanths were believed to be transitional at some point in the past. This change was reverted. Why does the more specific (dated) statement in the DNA section not require a citation, but the less specific statement require one? If the specific statement about “prior to 2013” had a citation, we would not need another citation saying that coelacanths were once considered transitional. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Coelacanth&type=revision&diff=818436729&oldid=818346377 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D44:78F:60D4:1C6E:ADE0:3AA5 ( talk) 01:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Just to let you know, this edit was technically not made in good faith, as the IP is in a range being (ab)used by an IP-hopping vandal who editwars by inserting and reinserting erroneous data into articles, and appears to be wholly uninterested in discussing anything, to the point where the vandal may have reading comprehension problems.-- Mr Fink ( talk) 21:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, you win. I chose those colors for a reason. I don't like jarring contrasts. I will get to the changes soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonsqueezey ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, HCA. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Ten years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Organismal Biomechanics articles with anthropocentrism 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. Liz Read! Talk! 15:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Organismal Biomechanics articles needing attention 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. Liz Read! Talk! 15:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Organismal Biomechanics articles needing photos 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. Liz Read! Talk! 15:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The file File:Forcevelocity 2.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused graph, lowish-resolution, unclear encyclopedic use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 09:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)