Welcome!
Hello, Nicolharper, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Dr Debug (
Talk) 16:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Nicolharper, I would just like to thank you on your work with Flying and Gliding Animals. You're doing a great job, and its a very useful article. When you've finished it, tell me, and I might as well award you something nice! Best of luck, -- Chachu207 18:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC) PS. If you want to reply, can you do so via my user talk page.
Just noted you poking around some mammal pages recently. Let me know if I can be of any help with anything. We should probably delete the glow-in-the-dark bit on the Godman's Rock Wallaby page if there isn't a reply there soon. -- Aranae 18:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded Ptychozoon_kuhli_underside.jpg, it isn't a great image, blurred out at the top - my camera isn't up to snuff when it comes to moving subjects, but it does demonstrate the flaps of skin on the legs, feet, sides of the body, and "ear" area on the sides of the head quite well. I just thought you might be interested, from your article on flying and gliding animals. Cheers. - Dawson 22:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
When editing please remember to always provide an edit summary. This informs other Wikipedians of the purpose of your edit and reduces the potential for misunderstandings and disputes. Providing an edit summary also helps identify vandalism (as most vandals do not provide edit summaries). Thryduulf 23:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Nicol, I noticed you still didn't vote. That and improving an article are the best way for you to contribute in getting a pesky AfD tag removed. -- Aranae 19:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Nicolharper , Please see the message I left you on the talk page on the Battle of Tours article. Thanks! old windy bear 16:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading images/media such as Image:Beeinflightfromfront.jpg to Wikipedia! There is however another Wikimedia foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading media there instead. That way, all the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!
Richard001 03:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the external links policy states that links should be limited to only the most useful and relevant, but contain information that is not suitable for inclusion in the page itself. Links that are useful but limited may be added as inline citations or references. Links themsevles should be kept to a minimum. WLU 16:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I see that you have done significant work on the page for Climbing Animals and was wondering if you would take a look at my revisions to Brachiation and offer some tips and/or criticism on it. I just started using Wikipedia so I am still new with its features and would appreciate any help you could give me.
Mrhelmers —Preceding comment was added at 20:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain why you reverted to your previous version of a page, undoing a tremendous amount of editing, with basically no explanation, no discussion on the talk page, and reverting to a version that contained numerous external links which a third opinion said were not necessary? Even a partial revert or edit of the specific areas could have retained or altered the information you felt was relevant without restoring the external links. I don't mind my editing itself being edited, or its wording being changed, but a blanket revert seems extreme, and wipes out a large amout of text that was added, not to mention citation templates. The Wading Hypothesis section which you reverted to, contained no link to the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, and mentioned the no-name Kuliukas, who has no wikipedia page, just a personal webpage, and no reason that I can see to retain mention of his name. If you see no merit to the vast amount of changes that have been made to the page, please bring this up on the talk page so I can understand why eight of my edits of good faith have to be discarded, as well as Mild Bill Hiccup's grammatical correction.
Thanks, WLU 19:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi WLU,
1) My 'five different' is sourced to one of the entries you thought should be an external link. The standard for external links is actually higher than it is for WP:RS. Why should it be an external link, but not a source for inline citation? And note that every single instance of bipedalism is linked to its own wikipage, in which bipedal animals are shown.
2) I rarely delete information. What I think I did was integrate the exceptional cases into other sections. Perhaps you should look into Bipedalism#Limited bipedalism in other species and Bipedalism#Limited bipedalism in mammals. Is the information you thought lost instead there? And consider re-adding the information you consider missing rather than blanket reverting, which fails to assume good faith for my changes.
3)Again, consider re-adding the advantages rather than blanket reverting.
4)If the headings are unacceptable, BE BOLD and change the headings. Don't blanket revert.
5) I've brought it up with an admin ( User:Isotope23) to ask for another third opinion. WLU 00:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Given these problems, I am afraid that the most efficient thing to do was to revert, but bearing in mind some of your edits as possible inspirations for future alterations. Cheers, Nicolharper 01:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
WLU, have good faith and please read what I wrote above, why don't you just make the edits you want from the current version but without the mistakes and deletions that I have previosly pointed out as disagreeing with. Of course I may disagree again with your edits, but hopefully not. I reverted because I want a good article on bipedalism, please don't take it personally. Nicolharper 02:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
<undent>Here's a hint. What you've done can get you blocked, per the WP:3rr. Discuss changes, don't revert and revert and revert. I've made accomodations to reflect what you wanted on the page. You have not. Budge. Make your changes as sections, not as reverts. Reverts end in obvious acrimony. And blocks. WLU 02:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. WLU 02:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
While blocked, you can still edit your talk page. If you like, I am very willing to look at your suggestions and attempt to edit the bipedalism page to a version that is acceptable to you. The issues you raised in previous discussion appear to include:
Please, I encourage you to make section edits rather than wholesale reverting. I believe I've made the changes you have, using section edits. Please let me know if there is any other changes you think are merited, and I'll try to edit towards a consensus that is acceptable to both. When your block expires or is removed, please edit section by section rather than just reverting, or revert and actually edit to reflect the work that's be done, discussion and work within the framework of policy and practices. WLU 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi WLU, I might be mistaken, and if so please ignore this message, but it looks like you didn't remove your call for a block after I reverted back to your version of the page. If this is so I am disappointed, it isn't helpful if we are going to work together on this page. Nicolharper 01:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you have edited in related areas within WP, and so thought you might have an interest in this discussion. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) ( talk) 18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed you seem to edit a lot of the same pages I do, and a lot of them are within the scope of the wikiproject I'm proposing, Wikiproject - Organismal biomechanics, so I was wondering if you'd be interested in it. A list of the pages I plan to have within the project scope are on my userpage. Mokele ( talk) 16:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Well I am surprised by the revert made in the flying and gliding animals article given my attempts to improve the readability of article. The edit I feel, was very minor where semantics were left unaltered. I'm happy to leave things as they are, whether it needed improvement is up for contention. Horses for courses I suppose. I am always mindful when I add or alter articles that the information presented can be followed easily and it will not make a reader confused, bamboozled or turn him or her off. I must say I am perplexed why the revert was made as I do not think it was needed. Any feedback on my talk page would be welcomed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Try0yrt ( talk • contribs) 01:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited List of mythological places, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hel ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Urban wildlife, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seal ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 13:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Nicolharper. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Nicolharper. 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)
Welcome!
Hello, Nicolharper, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Dr Debug (
Talk) 16:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Nicolharper, I would just like to thank you on your work with Flying and Gliding Animals. You're doing a great job, and its a very useful article. When you've finished it, tell me, and I might as well award you something nice! Best of luck, -- Chachu207 18:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC) PS. If you want to reply, can you do so via my user talk page.
Just noted you poking around some mammal pages recently. Let me know if I can be of any help with anything. We should probably delete the glow-in-the-dark bit on the Godman's Rock Wallaby page if there isn't a reply there soon. -- Aranae 18:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded Ptychozoon_kuhli_underside.jpg, it isn't a great image, blurred out at the top - my camera isn't up to snuff when it comes to moving subjects, but it does demonstrate the flaps of skin on the legs, feet, sides of the body, and "ear" area on the sides of the head quite well. I just thought you might be interested, from your article on flying and gliding animals. Cheers. - Dawson 22:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
When editing please remember to always provide an edit summary. This informs other Wikipedians of the purpose of your edit and reduces the potential for misunderstandings and disputes. Providing an edit summary also helps identify vandalism (as most vandals do not provide edit summaries). Thryduulf 23:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Nicol, I noticed you still didn't vote. That and improving an article are the best way for you to contribute in getting a pesky AfD tag removed. -- Aranae 19:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Nicolharper , Please see the message I left you on the talk page on the Battle of Tours article. Thanks! old windy bear 16:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading images/media such as Image:Beeinflightfromfront.jpg to Wikipedia! There is however another Wikimedia foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading media there instead. That way, all the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!
Richard001 03:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the external links policy states that links should be limited to only the most useful and relevant, but contain information that is not suitable for inclusion in the page itself. Links that are useful but limited may be added as inline citations or references. Links themsevles should be kept to a minimum. WLU 16:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I see that you have done significant work on the page for Climbing Animals and was wondering if you would take a look at my revisions to Brachiation and offer some tips and/or criticism on it. I just started using Wikipedia so I am still new with its features and would appreciate any help you could give me.
Mrhelmers —Preceding comment was added at 20:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain why you reverted to your previous version of a page, undoing a tremendous amount of editing, with basically no explanation, no discussion on the talk page, and reverting to a version that contained numerous external links which a third opinion said were not necessary? Even a partial revert or edit of the specific areas could have retained or altered the information you felt was relevant without restoring the external links. I don't mind my editing itself being edited, or its wording being changed, but a blanket revert seems extreme, and wipes out a large amout of text that was added, not to mention citation templates. The Wading Hypothesis section which you reverted to, contained no link to the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, and mentioned the no-name Kuliukas, who has no wikipedia page, just a personal webpage, and no reason that I can see to retain mention of his name. If you see no merit to the vast amount of changes that have been made to the page, please bring this up on the talk page so I can understand why eight of my edits of good faith have to be discarded, as well as Mild Bill Hiccup's grammatical correction.
Thanks, WLU 19:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi WLU,
1) My 'five different' is sourced to one of the entries you thought should be an external link. The standard for external links is actually higher than it is for WP:RS. Why should it be an external link, but not a source for inline citation? And note that every single instance of bipedalism is linked to its own wikipage, in which bipedal animals are shown.
2) I rarely delete information. What I think I did was integrate the exceptional cases into other sections. Perhaps you should look into Bipedalism#Limited bipedalism in other species and Bipedalism#Limited bipedalism in mammals. Is the information you thought lost instead there? And consider re-adding the information you consider missing rather than blanket reverting, which fails to assume good faith for my changes.
3)Again, consider re-adding the advantages rather than blanket reverting.
4)If the headings are unacceptable, BE BOLD and change the headings. Don't blanket revert.
5) I've brought it up with an admin ( User:Isotope23) to ask for another third opinion. WLU 00:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Given these problems, I am afraid that the most efficient thing to do was to revert, but bearing in mind some of your edits as possible inspirations for future alterations. Cheers, Nicolharper 01:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
WLU, have good faith and please read what I wrote above, why don't you just make the edits you want from the current version but without the mistakes and deletions that I have previosly pointed out as disagreeing with. Of course I may disagree again with your edits, but hopefully not. I reverted because I want a good article on bipedalism, please don't take it personally. Nicolharper 02:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
<undent>Here's a hint. What you've done can get you blocked, per the WP:3rr. Discuss changes, don't revert and revert and revert. I've made accomodations to reflect what you wanted on the page. You have not. Budge. Make your changes as sections, not as reverts. Reverts end in obvious acrimony. And blocks. WLU 02:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. WLU 02:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
While blocked, you can still edit your talk page. If you like, I am very willing to look at your suggestions and attempt to edit the bipedalism page to a version that is acceptable to you. The issues you raised in previous discussion appear to include:
Please, I encourage you to make section edits rather than wholesale reverting. I believe I've made the changes you have, using section edits. Please let me know if there is any other changes you think are merited, and I'll try to edit towards a consensus that is acceptable to both. When your block expires or is removed, please edit section by section rather than just reverting, or revert and actually edit to reflect the work that's be done, discussion and work within the framework of policy and practices. WLU 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi WLU, I might be mistaken, and if so please ignore this message, but it looks like you didn't remove your call for a block after I reverted back to your version of the page. If this is so I am disappointed, it isn't helpful if we are going to work together on this page. Nicolharper 01:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you have edited in related areas within WP, and so thought you might have an interest in this discussion. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) ( talk) 18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed you seem to edit a lot of the same pages I do, and a lot of them are within the scope of the wikiproject I'm proposing, Wikiproject - Organismal biomechanics, so I was wondering if you'd be interested in it. A list of the pages I plan to have within the project scope are on my userpage. Mokele ( talk) 16:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Well I am surprised by the revert made in the flying and gliding animals article given my attempts to improve the readability of article. The edit I feel, was very minor where semantics were left unaltered. I'm happy to leave things as they are, whether it needed improvement is up for contention. Horses for courses I suppose. I am always mindful when I add or alter articles that the information presented can be followed easily and it will not make a reader confused, bamboozled or turn him or her off. I must say I am perplexed why the revert was made as I do not think it was needed. Any feedback on my talk page would be welcomed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Try0yrt ( talk • contribs) 01:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited List of mythological places, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hel ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Urban wildlife, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seal ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 13:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Nicolharper. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Nicolharper. 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)