User talk:Elmidae/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

My edit of your gudgeon article

merely identifies the animal as a fish — which is otherwise left to the reader's imagination. Please reinstate it. -dav4is (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't usually go down the ladder this far in identifying a species in the lede, especially not in stubs. Have a look at any of the articles linked from Hypseleotris, the genus page; the lead sentence for all of them just links to "sleeper goby". You will find that this is the norm in all species articles were the organism is part of a higher taxon with a widely used common name. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Hello my friend. I just wanted you to know, the reason I placed the 3 Roadrunner collage photo up top and center, was for two reasons. I think it looked great there...lol. And secondly, in my humble opinion, the opening photo of the article leaves much to be desired for all involved: the photographer, the public, and the bird! :-) Happy editing, Your friend, Pocketthis (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	Teahouse Barnstar
	Because it's not always possible, but always great when we have someone qualified and willing to give guests specific in-depth help. TimothyJosephWood 15:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hexapoda

While I was adding a reference to something present to the left of the diagram present in the hexapoda article, as it said there citation needed, I noticed later that the whole box was removed. So, can you just assist me on that? When I see the previous edit then it just shows that the reference is added, however, the whole box seems to be removed. Thank You.Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Adityavagarwal, I can't see what you mean... are you talking about the "citation needed" for the 'arthropod gap' statement just after the cladogram? You seem to have replaced that with a reference just fine, and the cladogram is still there... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed later that showed only during editing but not in the normal one if it was not being edited.:)Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Needs some limelight

This concept of modified-extensive aquaculture (form of) needs some push for giving some sort of attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.208.114 (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Responded here.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

References

My edit summary in Indian giant squirrel was tongue-in-cheek, but accurate

India is a country riven by linguistic sub-nationalism. There are 22 official regional languages in India. These are spoken nearly exclusively in as many, or more, states in India. Marathi language, for example, is spoken in the state of Maharashtra and pretty much nowhere else. States will often, as a publicity gimmick or in a bid to attract tourists, adopt a particular mammal, a bird, a river, a mountain, and so forth, as their official mammal, bird, river, etc. The Indian Giant Squirrel is native to a large portion of peninsular India, as its own Distribution section amply demonstrates. "Malabar," a region in the very south of India, was a part of its old common name. Malabar is far away from Maharashtra. Not that it matters, but I created most of this article, at least turned it from a stub to a start-level article. I simply removed a non-notable, unsourced, bit of regional-POV-pushing, driven by WP:Lead fixation, which has little to do with the animal. How would you like more sentences on what the squirrel is called in each of the nearly dozen languages spoken in each of the nearly dozen states which overlap the animal's habitat? I wrote an edit summary, which is tongue-in-cheek, to be sure, but accurate. I won't edit war with you, but I trust you to remove this bit of nonsense. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, thanks for your considered response. On reflection I suppose you have the better argument here. I'm currently keeping a close-ish eye on an IP whose mission seems to be to tally and categorize the "national" XYZ of all the Indian states, and I'm certainly having trouble deciding whether national beverage should really be worthy of a category on sugarcane... so yes, I see the problem. But in any case, we do have a consensus on listing non-English names (only if predominatly known that way, OR, if it's a fully-fleshed article, in an existing section on nomenclature or cultural significance - not in the lede); and the federal state-level national mascot-hood might possibly warrant a category, but not a solo statement in a short lede. Self-reverted. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Platypus#Trivia:_Perry_the_Platypus

Why would that not be notable? Manorainjan (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Because it is a minor character in a cartoon. Do you have any idea how these accursed "In popular culture" sections would swell if in every article on X we listed all cartoon/comic/computer game appearances of X? This XKCD quite accurately describes the situation as it was a few years ago, and we can all be glad that consensus has since swung around to keeping these sections very much slimmer, and only feature iconic instances.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

GIF

I think it is a not neutral point of view. If this statement was true "having this thing in view makes reading the section almost impossble" then gif would not be allowed on wikipedia entirely. The aim was not to a good resolution, there are thousands of images to that, but to be able to quickly see how a heron walking. Assianir (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

NPOV has nothing to do with layout choices - that's only relevant for content formulation. When it comes to choice of images, keep in mind that they have to be both topical and aesthetically suitable. You will find that animated images are only used in articles if they demonstrate an important fact about the subject (and the walk of a heron is nothing particularly special), because they are potentially more distracting than helpful. That is particularly true for short-loop, jerky animations like the one you added. In summary, a heron walking is not sufficiently important to the article to make people put up with the annoying qualities of the GIF.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Your thoughts on "aesthetically appropriate" or "annoying" are the result of personal choices and are absolutely subjective; this have nothing to do with the spirit of collaboration of Wikipedia and, moreover, are not encoded after a shared consensus process. Maybe you think you protect people, but what you do, basically, is to impose YOUR standards Assianir (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, well. I happen to think that my interpretation is in tune with consensus, but if you think you can find consensus for putting that gif on the page, go ahead, open a discussion on the article's talk page, and invite other's opinions. Currently we are at the "D" stage of WP:BRD, so that would be the appropriate next step.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Cape elephantfish

Are you sure that the sentence you reverted makes sense: "The first dorsal spine has a large venomous spine in front of it."? Dorsal spine is commonly undesrstood as thoracic spine or thoracic vertebrae.--Mustvalge (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Mustvalge, I think we both had an end of the correct stick :) Of course the spine is in front of the first dorsal fin, but it is venomous, not poisonous. Clarified, and checked ref in the Branch source (Two Oceans). Cheers! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok nice, better --Mustvalge (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Please do chime in

Notability within bios (more specifically

application of wp:GNG/wp:BIO against wp:AUTH/wp:PROF...and both vis-a-vis vagaries of actual practice!)

I.e. - Is Matthew Grow, editor of The Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846 (The Church Historian's Press, which is an imprint of Deseret Book; 2016), notable? Is Benjamin E. Park, who reviews him here: "The Mormon Council of Fifty: What Joseph Smith’s Secret Records Reveal" (Religion & Politics, September 9, 2016)? Please chime in on a way to determine such questions in a much more consistent manner than at present...here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Suggested_fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

non-collegial ANI

Hi Elmidae (or should I say Riffle?)- Thanks for your input at that ANI post. I really regret that I came across to you as non-collegial. That bothers me more than whole rest of the matter. That editor and his type tax my patience and sap my enthusiasm for Wikipedia. There are a lot of people with poor English skills and sloppy habits who for some reason feel compelled to edit en.wp, and I try to be diplomatic with them. But that editor repeatedly shows himself to be needy and vindictive when called out for making a mess, and when he engaged in that self-promotion, I wanted to send up a flare. I can see now where my action might come across as too strong, especially to those not familiar with the editor's habits, and it irks me if I came across as petty. Anyway, I don't want to make a big thing of it, but I thought I'd drop you a note. I can tell that you are here only to do good--and that you are more patient than I--and I appreciate that. Eric ^talk 16:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eric, thank you. I'm actually feeling somewhat sheepish about the matter now; I'm still not sure whether putting this kind of preemptive caution on an apparent good faith review request is a good thing - mostly because it explicitly equates the proposer with the article itself, which ideally should be quite divorced. But having read over the type of interaction that editor seems to generate, I certainly can't fault you for trying to prepare people for possible trouble. And honestly, I think you are being quite a lot more patient than me; if someone acted with this kind of pettiness towards me I'd probably volley back in kind, against all good judgement. So, consider my statements to have been made with incomplete information, and I definitely can tell you are not out to get anyone either :) - On the side, I think the article in question is a nice piece of work by now, and might do well in a review (assuming no one starts cussing other people out in German...). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Einverstanden! Nice to "meet" you. Akubekuhle! (is that correct usage?) Eric ^talk 17:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Err... had to look it up, but it appears to be correct iZulu... I'm only slummin' it here as a postdoc, my engagement hasn't extended to learning any of the 10 non-English national languages yet! ;) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Manatee

Howdy. I wonder what you think of this this change. The original did not make sense to me, as the word we are talking about is the English word. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Oleg Alexandrov, reading through that double-barreled construction, I think the red threat got lost at some point during successive edits. The Spanish antecedent is nowhere mentioned in the source, nor is the given Carib spelling. I have simplified this part to remove ambiguity and stay close to the sources. Hope it makes sense now! :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Mars race

Hi. Following your comments at the AfD on Mars race I tagged the article for merging. The discussion is here. Andyjsmith (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Breadfruit

Hello Elimidae, I note you have removed my addition to this page under the title Fiji Islands. Your reasoning as I understand it, is that the entire additional text is not referenced at all. I am not sure if I can follow this reasoning, as the addtion contains three references, two of which are to other wiki pages. So I can better understand, are you suggesting the references are inadequate or are incorrect. I look forward to your reply Raj8Prasad (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Raj8Prasad, you cannot use Wikipedia itself as a reference, since it is user-generated and thus, by definition, unreliable. Strangely circular but true. If you use material that is based on other WP pages, you need to restate it anew and also provide the sources that the material is referenced to on the original page - i.e., you need to port the sources over to the new article, and refer only to these sources. Connections to other WP articles should be made by wikilinks in the text where appropriate, but not to replace citations. - An additional issue with your text was the use of unencyclopedic content ("It is a satisfying meal, providing workers with nourishment amd energy to endure the hard days work ahead of them.") that has no place in an encyclopedia article; please don't add this type of "fluffy" stuff :) Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

For you!

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thank you so much for your help me out on many occasions and providing really useful ideas and suggestions on a lot of articles! Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Bird songs

(Moved from above)

as an effort to improve articles on birds, i would like to add calls of different species of birds. some calls are available in wikicommons, but not all. can i add media files from Xeno-canto library which are under creative common license. Is there any rules i need to follow while adding them . Can you explainIamsalin (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

(Iamsalin, please put new comments under new headings at the BOTTOM of the page, not under the first heading on the page)

I don't actually know the modalities for audio files in bird articles, sorry. I suggest you drop a note at the talk page for Wikiproject Birds - people there should be more knowledgeable in this regard! Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

thank you for the valuable information about wikiproject birds i will do the same. regarding commenting on the bottom of the page, i actually didnt know how to use a talk page. will keep in mind during further conversations.Iamsalin (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Section Removal

My I asked what the problems with my section were so that I can improve it and repost. Foxx Molinari (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Foxx Molinari, I meant to insert an edited version to make my point, but didn't get round to it; my apologies. - My main issue is that you make most of these statements in Wikipedia's voice (i.e. "this is a fact"), rather than showing that they are the interpretations and conclusions of individuals or studies. By chaining multiple such bland assertions, the passage also gives the impression of being a dedicated "puff piece" that tries to drive home one viewpoint. I suggest that can easily amended by simply condensing and reformulating the passage to be more encyclopedic. My approach would be the below:

Wiccan literature has been described as aiding the empowerment of young women through its lively portrayal of female protagonists, particularly in North America. Part of the recent growth in Neo-Pagan religions has been attributed to the strong media presence of fictional works such as the Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Harry Potter series with their depictions of witchcraft, and widespread internet availability of related material.<reference 0>

Wiccan beliefs are currently often found to be compatible with liberal ideals such as the Green movement, and particularly with feminism by providing young women with means for empowerment and for control of their own lifes.<reference 1><reference 2> The 2002 study Enchanted Feminism: The Reclaiming Witches of San Francisco suggests that Wiccan religion represents the second wave of feminism that has also been redefined as a religious movement.<reference 1>

Note that I left out the "instead of Satanism" bit, since that is a controversial issue and would need more backing and discussion than just a throwaway mention; and I'm not entirely sure whether the last sentence covers what you intended, as your original sentence was somewhat unclear. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

OK thanks, I will revisit my work, and i will also enter that most of these are theories of correlation. Its just difficult because we were told everything has to be sourced and none can be original, yet you can't use what they said. A bit of contradiction, but I think I got it now. Foxx Molinari (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup, one has to rephrase a lot on here :) (altough the danger really lies in long segments; with short items you often can't but stick close to the original). Thanks for your thorough referencing, in any case! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Posted a new version, hope it sticks better. Foxx Molinari (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Foxx Molinari, but that was still quite wonky grammar and phrasing (in particular, the last sentence about Enchanted Feminism was so unconnected and jumbled as to be incomprehensible). I've replaced this with an expanded version of my suggestion from above, which I believe makes all the same points but more concisely. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry my dyslexia has been acting up.Foxx Molinari (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

All good : ) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Good job on the teamwork for the witchcraft article! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Please desist

You have now reverted 4 of my edits, and came later on another one; you also left barbs at my edit summaries in most cases. This is beyond the reasonable random meandering of an editor and constitutes hounding. I have tolerated it until now because, albeit one of them was definitely POVvish, the others were deserved. You latest revert, however, is by no means constructive: a quick search in the most circulated Serbian newspapers will find ample mention of Mia Borisavljević in most of them, including the top four spots, making it the poster child for Wikipedia:BIAS and the concern of notability most definitely not valid. There may be a concern of lacking English sources, if one wants to wikilawyer, but local notability is definitely stronger than my favourite example of consensus keep, namely Teaneck Kebab House. Please be informed that there are better sources of entertainment than Special:Contributions/Complainer and kindly stop targetting my edits. Thank you, complainer (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Complainer - here's the deal: I check up on your contributions at intervals because I don't trust you. This is based on observing that a) you have a tendency to excise material wildly with weak justifications, and b) you do so with a singular focus on belittling, ridiculing and scoffing - the content of the list of your edit summaries is well beyond the bounds of civility. You tend to get away with it because generally the articles are low-traffic, and the victims are IP editors; and, inshallah, if the majority of edits does end up improving the encyclopedia, there's an overall net benefit. However, I intend to keep an eye on it, as I do with a dozen other editors whose edits I know not to be uniformly dependable. This is a common practice, and helps keep Wikipedia healthy. Every so often someone runs to ANI in high dudgeon and complains about it, but it has been well established that WP:HOUNDING is something quite different. You are welcome to argue otherwise, but I doubt you'll get anywhere. - Re the latest edit, I concede that there are more sources than I found in my cursory search, and you have the right of it. Assuming you did check up on that before you removed the notice, it helps to actually mention your rationale in the edit summary instead of snarking (which I know is sometimes hard to resist, and I do it too; but then you don't get to bitch that someone doesn't take the edit seriously). So I'll revert this one. And I will keep looking over your contributions. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

And preemptively, although I wish it wasn't necessary, about Story of O: that is exactly what I am talking about. Easy to check in the source, readily referenced on the web. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Story of O, let me go through the "sources": you quoted:

1 - An anonymous "essay" from bookrags, a website that sells royalty-free essays to high-schoolers too lazy to write their own. This is not only an unreliable source, it is despicable, and now legitimized as a wikipedia source.

2 - An incredibly amateurish Story of O fan site, which, however, at least in the page you linked, doesn't mention the fact at all.

3 - A note that you wrote yourself implying that you have access to primary material; this is not how you quote primary material at all, convenient as it may be when you don't have any actual data to fill the template with.

Does some edition of HoO actually have her kill herself? Possibly; it is also possible it is an internet rumour. The only way to know would be having actual access to the 1965 edition everybody is talking about. Until somebody digs it out of a library, we shouldn't assume Reage turned smut into tragedy.

As a concluding note, I find it exceedingly unlikely that you are hounding a dozen editors like this. If you do, they are either very inactive or you have an amount of time on your hands that far exceeds that of us common mortals. In the latter case, I suggest you use it for properly sourcing your edits and/or go after actual vandals, of which there is no lack at any time. Or you could keep on like this, and change your nick to Vespidae. complainer (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I also forgot to mention: although a majority of good faith editors are not aware of the fact, we have no duty whatsoever to safeguard unsourced material. We can try to source it, let it be, or delete it, as we see fit. Personally, I remove it when I find it unlikely. complainer (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the only response necessary here is that a) I do have access to the first edition (university libraries are useful), and b) it is well established that for information about the text itself in articles about works of literature, the text is not only an acceptable primary source but indeed the preferred source (WP:PRIMARYCARE). So if the references sting you so much, you are welcome to remove them, and the statement remains sufficiently sourced. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Surprising as this may sound, I do not have access to your bookshelf; I can remove the two garbage sources, yes, but I am in no condition to rectify the valid one (I incidentally never said the text is not a valid source. I just took issue to how the source was used), possibly because university libraries in Denmark are oddly understocked when it comes to first editions of English translations of French smut. Also, sources do not sting me--I do not edit wikipedia to pamper my ego; having my edits reverted with increasingly shoddy ones, however, does annoy me, as, to all practical effects, my edits are now the indirect cause of wikipedia rot. complainer (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

So basically you are in no position to argue on facts, and are blowing hot air because it's "smut". If you apply that attitude to every offline source ("I don't believe it, I don't have the book, must be made up!"), I hope you'll stay far away from literature articles in general. - Well, since I wouldn't want to strain your faculties, I've replaced the reference with an easy-to-access mass market paperback cite, with page number; I trust that's satisfactory. Secondary sources not actually being required here, I have removed the study guide one. Deal with the other one as you wish. As far as I'm concerned, this is done with now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstand me; I shall assume you do so in good faith, as I assumed, in good faith, you went to a university library on a Sunday to get a rare first edition for the sole purpose of contesting an edit of mine. The fact that Story of O is smut, which it is to any smut-assessing standard, is irrelevant to the whole discussion; I have no qualms editing about smut; I think the fact wikipedia can concern itself with smut in spite of the hordes of rabid fundamentalists that edit it every day is a great victory. Now, sticking to what I have actually written, instead of fantastic assumption about my attitude, it boiled down to three points:

1 - books should be cited properly. I have never demanded that an easily available edition be used. If you still have the 1965 one, you are not only welcome, but actively encouraged to use that.

2 - if there is no valid source, we have the right to delete the material. This is not only true for smut, but for all types of material. I know many editors dislike this, and I only apply this myself to the most dubious cases but, if you don't like it, you have to take it up with wikipedia, not with me. Vague references to some unnamed early edition, as mentioned in the article when I curtailed it, do not count as valid sources in my opinion.

3 - using sites such as bookrags as sources degrades the quality of an article.

And now, in keeping with wikipedia's very first requirement, namely of keeping civility, I have to ask you to limit yourself to discussing edits, if you wish to do so (I am content with the current version of Story of O) and to abstain, for now and forever from discussing the editor (me), including my attitude, faculties, future enterprises or opinion of French smut. If you think I am a vandal, please report me, otherwise, feel free to insert the customary "I cannot be bothered" template and drop the matter. complainer (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

*sigh* You removed easily verified material; I went to the minimal effort required to certify the correctness of the statement. As a result, rather than further improving the material or verifying on your own, you went off into the expected interminable tirades. This confirms my previous conclusion that you are prone to opinionated and lazy edits. Much as I understand your desire to finish off here with a righteous smack-down or whatever you consider the above to be, I have no interest in playing along, and further material along the same lines will indeed be deleted without comment. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Once again, on wikipedia, you discuss the EDITS, not the EDITOR. I am an EDITOR, you are an EDITOR, I don't discuss you, and you are not supposed to discuss me, unless in very specific cases, the most common being vandalism (feel free). Whether you expect my "tirades" is completely, almost bookrags-as-a-source, irrelevant; your conclusions about me you can keep for yourself, facebook, or twitter; this is not a forum for them at all. Otherwise, if one contests activities on wikipedia, one ends up involved in discussions about it and, due to the nature of the million policies of of this place, these tend to be long. As I expunge material all time, I expect this and, when it comes to it, I walk the walk; e.g., here I am, walking the walk. Anyhow, if I remove easily verified material, which I will neither confirm nor deny, I have to stress out, once again, that this is within the rights of any wikipedia editor^[1]. Laziness is, in my opinion, not in removing material without verifying, it is in scribbling something out of the top of one's head and then demanding that other editors do one's homework by finding sources for him. You claim you went to a university library on a Sunday to dig out an old edition, then quoted a second one all this for an article you probably wouldn't even have read if you hadn't been following me: this may be praiseworthy, but it is simply not a standard of diligence you can hold wikipedia editors to. As for "deleting" (by which I imagine you mean reverting, as I hardly insert anything) material along whatever lines you imagine I am walking, whether you comment here or not is also completely irrelevant: if the sources are dubious and the reverts haphazard, I will take up the discussion here, as is the common praxis of wikipedia. complainer (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright, let's leave it at that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Notes

1.^ New editors reading this post should be aware that when it comes to deleting entire articles, we do indeed have the duty to check whether sources for notability can be easily assessed; this is a different policy, although it is often misinterpreted to apply to all deletions.

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Northern Sumatran rhinoceros

The IUCN does declare the Northern Sumatran rhinoceros possibly extinct. Even though they don't have an individual page for the Northern Sumatran rhinoceros, the do have a page for the Sumatran rhinoceros as a whole. I read TOATALLY through it! It does say "(possibly extinct)" next to the northern subspecies. I didn't extrapolate. Pancakes654 14:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC) Pancakes654 14:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancakes654 (talk • contribs)

Pancakes654, the point is that nowhere on that page [2] or anywhere else is the exact status "Critically endangered, possibly extinct" assigned to the subspecies. This is a very specific status and has to be assigned, not inferred. The site has this to say: The population status of the subspecies Dicerorhinus sumatrensis lasiotis is unknown, with the very slight possibility that a small number of individuals survive in the Lassai Tract in Myanmar. That does not translate into CR/PE status - that's merely your interpretation. And your (or mine, or anyone's at WP) interpretation is not something we can ascribe to the IUCN. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

In the "Taxonomic notes" section of the IUCN Sumatran rhino page, it has "(probably Extinct)" next to the Northern sumatran rhino. I copied an pasted that "(probably Extinct)". So that must mean their conservation status is CR (PE). Pancakes654 20:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancakes654 (talk • contribs)

Pancakes654, there is no "that must mean" when it comes to IUCN status. It is either explicitly assigned or we can't report it as such. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Invitation

Since you like to edit articles on birds a lot, would you like to join WP:BIRDS? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi RileyBugz - sure :) I honestly don't expect too much of Wikiprojects in terms of added value (it rarely seems to work out that way), but they are certainly useful as centralized notification and discussion boards for the subject area, and I'll be happy to sign up for that and put the relevant pages on my watchlist! Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello there! It is great to see you join WP:Bird; I thought you already were a member of the Wikiproject, having seen your awesome contributions to almost every bird article (not only bird, but many more articles too!) that I have edited. I was wondering if you would be able to have a look and give a review on the common loon. It has undergone a ce too (you might be remembering it through the wrong end of the grammar stick ). However, if you are unable to check it out due to any reason, it would be fine too. I hope I can learn more from you. Have a great day! Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Editing

Why do you always undo my edits?

Dinan Blueje (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

(By your leave, Elmidae): Dinan Blueje, Elmidae is here to improve the encyclopedia. If your edits are regularly being undone, you may find that the answer to your question is to be found in an examination of the quality of your edits. Eric ^talk 14:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Pictures

Am I adding too many pics? I recently too some and added them to the likes of Brickyard Cove Pond and also came across a bunch of the Bay Area that where not in use too. Is there anyway I can find out what pictures are needed in the Bay Area for articles that don't have them yet?Wikigirl97 (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wikigirl97, images are welcome particularly in articles that don't have any yet (as with Brickyard Cove Pond). However, you do need to make sure of several things before inserting one:

- it has to be topical and not just have a peripheral connection. E.g., that random guy in a hoodie you used in two articles - not very enlightening either on the topic of models (and it isn't clear he even is one), nor of Abercrombie. The one in Idiot was just completely off the wall :)

- it has to be well placed on the page. E.g., the image in Pinus halepensis sat in the middle of the top of the page and broke the entire layout.

- you can't use original research or editorializing in the captions. All of the above are examples of that - the captions all contain material that is not supported by either the article text or a referenced source. The best captions are those that are purely descriptive, and just serve to link the image to the text, not introduce new material

In articles that already contain multiple images, put particular thought into whether any additional image adds something worthwhile and not-yet-illustrated. "I found another one" or "I want my own image in there" is usually not a good rationale.

Just some things to keep in mind :)

As for articles without images, I don't know of a central way to keep track of these; I'm aware that some WikiProjects keep on their own tab on such things (e.g., the Tree of Life project [3]). You might want to drop a question at the Help Desk - they are usually quite good with that sort of thing. Cheers :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh I see that makes sense, i picked that one because it was named bafoon or something like that and it seemed to fit with idiot, as for the hoodie pic he looks like a model and don't we need an illustration of people wearing their clothes?Wikigirl97 (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

What goes in bold and what doesn't?

Please, explain your recent edition reversals. Most pages I have seen (mostly insects) use bold for both the common and the scientific name. In fact, if there are several common names, they all go in bold. See Cotinis nitida. --Polinizador (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Polinizador, as far as I'm aware, usage is thus: the species' common name is always in bold; this also applies to multiple common names. If the article is labeled after one of these common names, that first mention (usually the first word in the first paragraph) is in bold italics. The scientific name is always in italics, and only in bold italics if the article is named after that name. See e.g. all the species linked from Angel shark or Bird-of-paradise (labeled by common name, hence that in bold italics, scientific in non-bold italics in brackets); or the species linked under Acisoma (article labeled under scientific name, hence both that and the common name in bold).

(To make the entire thing a little more murky, there are patches of articles where parts of that have been disregarded; see e.g. most of the species linked from Sympetrum, where either the article should be moved to the common name, or the lede should be changed to refer to bold-italics-scientific first, bold-common next :P )

Anyway - the main bit, to my knowledge, is to not bold the scientific name unless it is the article title. Much of that stuff sadly is merely How People Have Been Doing It, and could do with a bit of codification... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

As I said and as you saw yourself, both common and scientific names are in bold in insect pages (or at least all the ones I have seen). It makes sense to emphasize the scientific name by bolding it since it is ultimately the most important name. If there is no codification, this is the way it should be done throughout, in my opinion. Don't you think? By the way, genus and species are always in italics. Anything above them (family, tribe, etc.) is not in italics. --Polinizador (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The scientific name is in bold only if it is identical to the page name (individual exceptions notwithstanding). That's what bolding indicates: the topic of the page. It's probably not worth edit-warring over, but I would ask you not to start spreading islands of double-bolding within the insects, when species articles in general don't do this. If it is an issue, we could always drop a query at the Wikiproject Tree of Life talk page. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

No islands. It seems that it is done that way pretty consistently on insect pages. Anyways, most of my work is on the Spanish Wiki pages where it is done that way throughout. I plan to keep working there. I don't do much in English anyways. --Polinizador (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you link me to some of those insect pages (preferably genus with several species links)? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see your request until just now. As I said, using bold for both the common and scientific names is the rule, not the exception on the pages I visit most frequently, insects and other arthropods. I have also seen the same on many plant pages. Here is a list I gathered in just a few minutes:

Honey bee, Eastern carpenter bee, Bumblebee, Stingless bee, Ashy mining bee, Mason bee, Potter wasp, Beetle, Click beetle, Firefly, Whirligig beetle, Common green bottle fly, Tsetse fly, Warble fly, Mosquito, Crane fly, High brown fritillary, Geometer moth, Millipede, Centipede --Polinizador (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. It does seem fairly common on species pages (discounting the higher taxon pages - they use a different format, and I think there's more leeway there). Probably not worth fussing about anyway. Maybe the relevant Wikiprojects will formulate a common layout at one point, followed by much formatting... in the meantime I'll keep my hands off those :) Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hatted Conversations

If you want to put your reply, do it OUTSIDE of the hat, not inside. --Tarage (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorryt, I didn't want to cross conversations here :) - I guess I'll just unhat, because the current thread doesn't make much sense with external bits stuck on below. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry for getting you worked up at Gigasiphon macrosiphon. I was just trying to find a way to fit in the fact that they need a status update. Appearently, none of my ways were proper (after all, I am rather new to Wikipedia). I just came to apologize for getting you worked up. I promise to never just guess a way to fit that in again without asking. Pancakes654 21:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancakes654 (talk • contribs)

Sheesh, don't overdo it. Just don't make unsupported statements. There's nothing in that source that says what level the classification will be updated to (if any), so we don't report as if there were. Simple ;) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

But this doesn't just appy for Gigasiphon macrosiphon. I will try to restrain myself from "guessing" ANY conservation status again like I have at some articles. (Though I MIGHT come to your talk page and ask you, so don't be alarmed if I possibly do.) Pancakes654 21:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Pancakes654 21:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancakes654 (talk • contribs)

Please comment on Talk:2017

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Tsetse fly

Hi, thanks for reverting the IP who is, ah, buzzing about the article. He's now done it again for the 5th time. He's had 2 warnings, guess a 3rd will be in order. I'm out of reverts so I'll step aside for a day or two at least. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverted again, dropped another warning. Next one goes straight to AIV, I guess :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

He's done another in more conciliatory style... technically edit-war, not doubt about it, but guess he's no idea how to discuss things other than in edit comments... Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Acer saccharinum

Why did you remove my edit at Acer saccharinum? NatureServe does list it as secure! (P.S. if you don't answer me I might get all stressed and flip out in my comments more). Pancakes654 16:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Pancakes654 16:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancakes654 (talk • contribs)

My bad, this is actually appropriate in absence of a IUCN assessment. Reverted. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Question: Why can't I flip out in my comments? Pancakes654 00:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Pancakes654 00:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Where?

Where should this go? Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Nowhere in that article, really. The topic is the impact of various holocene processes (among them expansion of human agriculture) on biodiversity loss. Your paragraph is about the possible risk of monocultures to human well-being. Different kettle of fish. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Neonate cottonmouth pic...

Hey whoever re-specied my juvie cottonmouth pic was wrong!!!! Please put it back up and with the correct original caption. I'm pretty inept with wiki but I did once manage to put that pic up in the first place way back in 2006. The picture is one I took during my thesis research on eastern cottonmouths in Newport News Park (Dr. B Savitzky was my advisor), VA. So, um, er, I'm kind of an expert on these things...

Thanks,

Vincent Passaro

Hi Cottonmouth025 (please sign all your messages by appending four tildes ~ !), I have no opinion on whether this image is correct; I was assuming that the previous editor knew what they were doing in renaming the image, and was cleaning up after them. If you are sure the identification is correct, by all means reinstate. I've tidied it up a bit though (inserting mulitple breaks to fix the layout is the LAST thing you want to do on any page :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI regarding Etmopterus

I have mentioned you in my initiation of a discussion about Planonasus' editing of Etmopterus at this ANI thread. I did not ping you because I was not sure if you would want to participate in the discussion. Hope your travels are going well. – Rhinopias (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

International Justice Mission

Hi, Elmidae. I hope you're doing well. I've been working with another editor on International Justice Mission to move material from Criticism to the appropriate place throughout the article. However, that editor has not been all that active over the last couple weeks. If you have the time, would you mind taking a look here? I appreciate any help! Best, SE at Int'l Justice Mission (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry SE at Int'l Justice Mission, I'm a bit late to the party... it seems as if Jaking01 has by now sorted out this edit? Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Cerastes gasperettii

Hi, my edit on Cerastes gasperettii was NOT politically motivated. It was accuracy-motivated. There is no official country called Palestine. For accuracy's sake, the page should say Israel, not Palestine. After all, the snake DOES live in Israel. Thank you. Shui Yuena (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, after reviewing the page's edit history, I noticed a similar reversion by you, with an edit summary saying "revert Palestine -> Israel political asshattery". Are you really going to claim that that ISN'T politically motivated? Puh-lease. I hope you have a great day. Shui Yuena (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Palestine is a recognized state; see State of Palestine. The species' distribution should follow credible sources, and it's quite plausible the species is located primarily in Palestine and not Israel. Per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, please begin a discussion on the article's talk page at Talk:Cerastes gasperettii after your edit has been reverted to avoid edit warring.

This article is not directly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and "political asshattery" may be terse, but please be aware that your account (as you have less than 500 edits) is currently restricted in editing articles related to this topic as detailed at WP:ARBPIAINTRO. Your primary reason for editing Cerastes gasperettii may be cause for adhering to these sanctions. – Rhinopias (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Palestine is only a partially recognized state. Israel, while not fully recognized by every member of the UN, is recognized by most. It is also a full member of the UN, while Palestine is a "non-member observer state". As for the species' distribution, a map on its page clearly shows that its range extends into Southeastern Israel. You are right in stating that the article is not directly related to the Israeli-Arab conflict. As shown on the WP:ARBPIAINTRO page, the ban on members with less than 500 edits only applies to articles directly relating to the conflict. Therefore, I should be able to freely edit the article to accurately reflect the true range of the species. Shui Yuena (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Usage on Wikipedia is to recognize Palestine as a location when it comes to geographical specificity. As the distribution map shows, this allows to more correctly describe the species' range limit (basically the northern end of the Dead Sea basin). That is not going to be watered down by some parochial attempt to not have some political entity or other appear in the text. - "central Israel and Palestine" would be correct as far as that goes, I assume, although already redundant. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Plague of nbsp.

I have *no* idea, I've asked on the help des. The edit was simply to add the s for John Hopkins.Naraht (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

AWB or something of that ilk? *shrug* Nae bother :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Elmidae. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Dinornis

I understand your trepidation in accepting the changes I’ve made to this article. However, my edit directly references the source (linked to separate article and understood to be published on TV). Also, while I genuinely believe in your sincerity, I doubt that you know there aren’t any published studies to suggest that the genus isn’t extinct. Perhaps you could provide several publications proving that there is in fact a scientific consensus regarding the extinction of the genus? Until then, I am reverting your edits. Thanks for your concern, and happy editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.124.132 (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

See the article's talk page. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Non Peer Review Work

Hello. You removed papers on arXiv because non-peer reviewed. This would cancel many papers such as those of Grigoriy Perelman. The common practice is to only cite those that are cited, as >12 citations is equivalent to peer-review. >40 is certainly peer-reviewed. Limit-theorem (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Limit-theorem, I'll take your word for it; this certainly wouldn't be acceptable with biology papers, but things may swing differently in the mathematical sciences. Feel free to revert. However, I suggest that the first of my two reverts [4] should stand, as THAT paper was submitted only 4 days ago and can't have stood any amount of scrutiny whatsoever at this point (arxiv link). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not reverting your link. It was just to point out that many great works are not technically peer-reviewed, hence the criterion needs to be less rigid. Limit-theorem (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thanks :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Elmidae. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you . I added Olympiodoros military leader page as you suggested. I found a picture of him (a bust) but I'm having problems adding it. I followed your advice but it doesn't help me. Can you add it for me somehow? Researchdata99 (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Researchdata99, thanks for that! Seems you figured out how to add the image. I moved the page to the more suitable title Olympiodoros (military leader). Could I ask you to please add some temporal data to the article - i.e., his birth and/or death dates, if known, and the period of his holding office? Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You are most valued . Thank you for your response and assistance. Researchdata99 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarence AfD

Hi. I'm not a dweller very often in the deletion pile (too sad of a place for me to wander through on a regular basis), so was wondering how the links work. Some items on the page are being added to on the deletion log itself, while others, like the Clarence AfD request, have their own pages. Did I add my comment to the right place? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Not a regular there either, but from my experience, one comments on the specific discussion page. The log gets auto-populated from that, I believe. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi There. Trouble with adding Photo

Hi There, You've been so helpful so I'm reaching out to you . I created the olympiodoros military leader page and added a photo. I tryed so many times to fill in the right info for this page but I guess it's just not right. There is no copyright for the picture and it is public domain in a book that is listed. Please can you help me, if you have a free minute? Thank you ever so much .Researchdata99Researchdata99 (talk) Dec 18,2017 11:20 am eastern time usa. —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Researchdata99, if the original is in a book, it is actually unlikely that the photo is in the public domain. While there are published books that take this route (e.g., books published by national services such as the United States Fish and Wildlife Service), the standard situation would be that the copyright belongs to the photographer (who is presumably credited in the book). Why do you think it would be in the public domain? Does the book explicitly state that all material contained therein is so licensed? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Gregory Pontrelli

Hello Elmidae. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gregory Pontrelli, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: the amount of coverage is sufficient to indicate significance. Notability is not required to fail A7, use WP:AFD instead. Thank you. SoWhy 16:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Right, will do so. Cheers! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Just some advice: for determining if a page should be tagged with A7, I generally see if there is at least one reliable source that covers the subject in-depth. If there is, then I don't tag it, and instead AfD it, and if not, then I tag it. Hope that helps. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 04:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I hadn't quite gotten the distinction between "indicators of notability" and "claims of importance" (I gather from SoWhy's various essays that many people don't :). Got it now, I hope. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Future of Food article

Have added some comments for your consideration. Rsarlls (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)