Wikipedia

User talk:Invertzoo/Archive 76

< User talk:Invertzoo
Latest comment: 10 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic The Signpost: 30 April 2014
Archive 70←Archive 74Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77Archive 78→Archive 80


ARCHIVE PAGE 76: April 2014


The Signpost: 02 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Re

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello dear Invertzoo, sorry for delay. I thank you heartily for your appreciation about my article on Canariella planaria and for your kind invitation. Unfortunately I'm not an expert about Gastropods. I wrote that because I converted and uploaded to Commons some videos of Malacowiki Malacología Ibérica on YouTube. I thank you so much again and I wish you all the best for your great work on Wikipedia. Have a very nice day! Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 11:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your very nice note Jacopo. You don't have to be an expert to join our WikiProject, you only have to have some interest in snail and slugs. But whether or not you want to join doesn't matter -- we are very glad for the work you already did. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Introduction

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Invertzoo. I saw that you have a strong interest in the issue of organizations that participate on Wikipedia articles about themselves. A substantial portion of my contributions to Wikipedia have to do with helping organizations participate appropriately and obtain GA articles where possible. In addition to disclosing my conflict of interest on the corresponding articles, I should also disclose with the broader community, in particular those that have an interest, so I thought I should just introduce myself.

I realize we are in a position to be combative maybe. You feel organizations should not participate, and I help them do so. But my intention is not to change your mind or be combative. On the contrary, my views are similar - just that there is a caveat in my mind that there are exceptions and every case is unique.

Anyways, Hi! CorporateM (Talk) 03:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well hello to you too. Nice to meet you. Are you coming to WikiConUSA? If so, you will hopefully hear my arguments while you are there. Invertzoo (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Lebrunia coralligens

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for your comments on my editor review page. Would you be able to look at the article Lebrunia coralligens which some jump-on-the-bandwagon editor has tagged as being in need of expert attention? It was written during the present furore and so I was trying to take the greatest of care while I wrote it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I know almost nothing about sea anemones, and thus it is hard for me to say whether or not there is anything wrong with that article. However, I can ask the editor who put the tag on it to explain what he thought the problem was. Invertzoo (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bivalvia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cockle (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) 08:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Scallop neurology

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

InvertZoo: I have proposed another mollusc-related image of mine for Featured Picture status over on Commons here. I know this kinda backfired on me last time (!) but I value your input, even if it is to object to the image for some reason, and would appreciate it once again on this image, whether for or against. I worked pretty hard on it, so please be gentle if you are going to object. I look forward to having your response, regardless. Thank you! KDS4444Talk 09:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

OK! Thanks for letting me know. It really is a very cool-looking diagram. You will see that I did leave a note on that page. As I think I said once before, next time you are going to submit a gastropod-or bivalve-related image, it would really be a good idea to first ask on the appropriate project page for someone to check it for you and approve it before you submit it. Then we would all be behind you, and there wouldn't be any nasty surprises in a public setting. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
You are right, of course-- I was so excited to finally feel it was ready to be put up for consideration (after several months of off-and-on work) that I did not consider vetting it first, which I am sure would have been to its benefit and which you had suggested I do regardless. I have no other mollusc-related images in development (am moving on to annelids) so at least there shouldn't be any new surprises from me on this front. Thanks again! KDS4444Talk 00:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Re:Perhaps as a WikiCup judge, you should know this?

Latest comment: 10 years ago29 comments4 people in discussion

Thanks for the note. I am aware of the situation. The person who initiated the campaign against Cwmhiraeth has been quick to blame the WikiCup and sling mud in my direction. J Milburn (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I am sorry to hear that, as it is obviously not in any way your fault, but in the case of this one editor, it seems possible that competing for the Cup may have helped encourage or reinforce Cwmrhiraeth's less-than-punctilious approach to extracting information from sources. Invertzoo (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not really in a position to follow the situation in detail for various reasons, but, from my experience, the complaints are either stylistic in nature or extremely minor. The user in question challenged my promotion of gastrotrich to GA status, even initiating a GA reassessment, and the complaint essentially amounted to the fact that of many hundreds of species declared marine in the article, there were two species that were not marine, each observed all of once. That wasn't an issue of not interpreting a source correctly (though I understand that there have been cases of this happening) but a case of a perfectly reliable source missing out on some very specific information. Certainly not the kind of thing which warrants a GA reassessment. J Milburn (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
As an aside, I've known Cwmhiraeth on-WP for a while- I promoted her first GA back in 2012. The article in question was Adamussium, which may well be in your area of expertise, if you want to take a look at it. (To be transparent- I'm not a biologist, more an interested amateur, though my own academic interests do lead me into reading and citing biology from time to time.) J Milburn (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I remember looking at this article briefly long time ago. It is a species that I know nothing about, but it is part of a family I know a fair bit about. I have not yet checked the references against exactly what she says. I do however see that she says "...is a suspension feeder, extracting its nourishment from the sea water that surrounds it. Water is drawn into the gill chambers, entering through a gap between the valves near the hind end of the shell, passes over the gills and exits the shell through another gap at the hind end. Oxygen is absorbed by the gills and food particles, mostly microscopic algae, are trapped in mucous and transported to the mouth by cilia." This is sourced to Collins Pocket Guide to the Seashore, which is very elementary, almost a children's book. And what she says might (nearly) apply to a certain kinds of clams, but absolutely does NOT apply to any scallop. In the scallop shell there is no "gap between the valves near the hind end of the shell", and "another gap at the hind end". Actually even in shells that have a gap at the posterior where the siphons emerge, there are not two gaps but one gap or "gape" as it is known. And scallops don't have siphons anyway. I am too tired this evening to go hunting for any other odd inclusions, but maybe tomorrow I can look again. Invertzoo (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I have found a better source for the feeding behaviour which I hope I have interpreted correctly, because it is not very clear whether the section is talking about veliger larvae or post-metamorphosis individuals. Perhaps I am just digging myself deeper into a pit by making this change. At least I am seeking your advice about it ! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Collins Pocket Guide to the Seashore is not similar to a children's book. It is in no way elementary and consists of 272 pages of text about each of the marine organisms found around the coasts of Britain, and C. M. Yonge is a much published author. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I myself am guilty of having referenced children's literature as Wikimaterial for citations. Anything calling itself a "pocket guide" should certainly be suspect... and if someone, anyone, knows that any of the information contained within it is flat-out wrong, then its credibility further decreases (sadly). Also: I suggest C.M. Yonge be contacted directly (if still alive) and asked to account for herself here. There is no better opportunity or venue. KDS4444Talk 12:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
To my eyes, those sorts of guides are pretty good for identification (so, macroscopic morphology and habitat) but less good for anything ecological. I'd avoid that one just for the simple reason that it's so old! There will be any number of similar guidebooks published since. J Milburn (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't know what the Collins guide actually says, or what species that piece of text was applied to in the book. All I know is that scallops do not have a gap or two gaps between the valves of the shell at the hind end. I will look again at the piece, although, as I have already said, I only know a fair amount about what is true for the family Pectinidae; I am not familiar with the genus Adamussium per se. Invertzoo (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Also in general in biology, it is really not a good idea to "fill in" information that is lacking about one species, by using info that is about another species in the same family, especially when it is such as large family with so many species that live in a diverse set of habitats. To do that is always risky, as the Antarctic scallop (a monotypic genus), being rather specialized, may have different behaviors and morphology than the scallops that occur off the coast of the British Isles. Invertzoo (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I guess that is one of my faults. In an effort to try to make a rounded article when little information is available, I move to the genus or family and presume that the information given on them will also apply to my species. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I do totally understand why you would try to do that, but with individual species, unless you can find a reliable source that says that "all the species in this family/genus have this" or "all of them do this" then it may be taking a risk. For example (although not relevant to this article), although almost all scallops are good swimmers, there are a few scallops species that are free-swimming when they are small juveniles but rapidly become cemented in place and stay that way for the rest of their lives. Nature has a way of throwing a curve ball every so often to keep us on our toes. By the way, I do feel that you are basically a good contributor; there has been in general a vast overreaction, thanks to certain troublemakers and others who enjoy piling on in criticism. I think all of us make mistakes from time to time; I do however think it would be good to try to be just a bit more careful routinely and maybe to try to avoid straightforward paraphrasing in favor of rewriting info from scratch. All good wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The trouble with your suggestion on rewriting material from scratch, which incidentally is what is recommended in the advice on how to avoid close paraphrasing, is that it won't please Fram and Cyclopia. It will produce descriptions like yellowish-brown where the source stated "yellow to tan" and will introduce words not used in the source, and this is original research, or so they make out. When I have tried to argue this point with them they say I cannot recognise my faults and "just don't get it". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

A handy subheading

Well, some people get impatient easily and are not good at explaining things carefully to other people. In any case, I always try to rewrite content from scratch, although I admit that getting used to that technique may be hard at first if you are used to simple paraphrasing.

The problem with "yellowish-tan" is that it is one color, whereas "yellow to tan" indicates a range of variety within those two adjacent colors, i.e. some are yellow, some are tan and some are various shades of an in-between color. However what I want to say here is that if you rewrite a section of info completely in every other way, it won't matter if you say that... 'the color ranges from "yellow to tan" '... those three words being exactly the same as the original, or perhaps you can say... 'it is colored in a range from "tan to yellow" '... if you like. In much the same way, it is OK to say "depths of 5 to 10 meters", even if the original text uses exactly those words. These are simple facts and don't have to be changed.

The problem with plagiarizing comes when you use the same overall sentence structure and the same or almost identical phrases, such that it is obvious you just slightly re-worked the original. So in other words if the original says, "a intertidal species, it occurs in sandy bays" you can say, "this species is found in the intertidal zone of bays on sandy substrate" or something similar. Try not to say something like, " it is a species which is intertidal and is found on bays that are sandy" because that sounds too much like the original. I can help you with this by teaching you how to do it if you like. You can show me parts of sources that are hard to re-write and I can teach you how to break it up and rewrite it. At first it will be slow but it will get much faster as your brain becomes more used to it and more nimble at doing it.

Invertzoo (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. What if I write an article in my user space trying to use the technique you suggest and then ask you to review it? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I think that because you need to develop some new techniques during editing, that working on the micro scale would be far more helpful than the macro approach. I would prefer to see small pieces of text, one by one, each one based on one reference, so I could check that one piece, suggest changes, discuss if necessary, and then have you make changes, and then, assuming everything is OK, go on to the next piece of text. After all, I would intend this to be a learning experience. I am not volunteering simply in order to get your articles to an acceptable level; I am volunteering to do this because I want you to learn how to do this for yourself. You know the proverb: give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime. Invertzoo (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
If you are very reluctant to do this, or simply don't think you can put up with this process, I would rather you were honest with me, and said so now. However, you will probably find that you may have to agree to do something, because there is a problem really, a problem that may seems small, but is very pervasive and does create some real issues. This problem is not going to just go away if you ignore it. It will also will not be erased by other people taking up the slack for you. I would rather than people did not gang up on you about this, which is unfair, but if you try to pretend there really is no problem, I figure you may end up getting a block of some sort, or a bad reputation, or something similar that you don't want to be saddled with. Take your time, good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your email. I agree with the view you express and will be pleased to continue to learn with you as tutor, working at any rate that suits you. I will be happier, however, when the editor review is closed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


Well, I made a start before I saw your reply and it is here, currently with one reference (apart from WoRMS). The lead bit about the distribution is temporary and I notice that the phrase "subtidally and offshore" appears in both the original and in my sentence, though that was inadvertent. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at it. One thing that is tricky with the Tasmania reference is that the note-form prose they give is not very clear and therefore is a bit confusing as to its exact meaning. I think they mean that even when the internal pink color of these shells has faded, a metallic sheen persists on the inside of the shell. I have certainly seen dead ones that were still very pink inside like the one that is shown in the taxobox. But this is not what they say in their note, so you might not know this is the case. This is an example of why it is so tricky to write an article about a species or a genus that you are not really familiar with. (And, I know you are going to fix the distribution part in the intro but it says "in sandy locations" whereas the sources says "in sand", meaning that this clam actually lives in sand.) Invertzoo (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Instead of saying "it is known subtidally and offshore" you can maybe say "it occurs from subtidal depths to offshore". But because you are used to doing overly close paraphrasing, you are going too need always to check everything you write at least once to make sure you have not duplicated the same sentence structure or phrases as the original. You don't have to zero in on making every word different, which can get you into trouble, but you do have to learn to become fluent in completely re-phrasing things. The less text is present in the original, the harder this is to do of course. Invertzoo (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well I wasn't sure whether the pink sheen was on the interior or exterior, but working in userspace means I can change things if I find another source for the description which supplies more information. Your distribution sentence looks good. I am stopping now and will go on tomorrow, working in stages as you suggest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Great, that works better for me too. Invertzoo (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
To give me better practice in summarizing information I have started another practice article here. For the moment I have just created a skeletal article but have provided the source from which I intend to summarize information, starting later today. I like the Biological Bulletin because of its free content. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
OK. The basis of the new octopus article looks OK. I left you more notes in the text of the draft of the Neotrigonia species article. I also created an article for that genus. Thanks for the link to the Biological Bulletin article, I found a piece of information in it that is useful for a paper I am writing. Invertzoo (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I will place notes about each draft on the talk page of that draft. But more general notes I will continue to place here. Invertzoo (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I started the octopus article because I thought it offered more scope for practising your technique. I have added a description to it, some of the information comes from the captions to the images. I will do one section a day to one or other of the articles. Sorry to be a nuisance. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
OK. I just wanted to explain that it can be surprisingly tough for anyone to figure out precisely what another person did in terms of the way they took out info from a source. It is quite difficult and time-consuming for anyone to do, because it involves detective work -- I am not there looking over your shoulder as you do it, so I can't follow it in real time -- i have to try to reconstruct it subsequently. (The WP edit history page is only of quite limited value in that respect.) The fact that decoding exactly what you did is so difficult may even possibly, at least partly, explain why your critics were so ticked off by the time they got to posting a message about it, because it is a frustrating process. I would say even from this first foray into coaching you, that you seem to need to spend more time working out exactly what the person writing the source was implying, before you translate it into your own words. Admittedly the person who wrote the Neotrigonia source was very bad at writing about it. When that is the case, you may need to spend a lot more time reading generally about the class, order and superfamily before you try to begin the article. Invertzoo (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Daphnobela

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Snail Lady,

Thank you for the kind note on my talk page! I appreciate you cleaning up the stubs I created. Unfortunately, I know nothing more about these species than I included in the articles. If I create any similar stubs in the future, I will attempt to follow the example you have set.

Neelix (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You are very welcome, major WP contributor! Any stubs on mollusks of any kind will be welcomed! Invertzoo (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Refs are not needed in the lead as long as they are in the body of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, however, there is a completely separate problem. As someone else pointed out on the talk page of that article, 2 g is actually equal to 2,000 mg, not 5,000 mg!!! If we leave that sentence in, it is very confusing -- which is correct -- 2 g or 5 g ??? A big difference! Because the source was not cited, I cannot check to see which one was actually in the original. Maybe you can check the source? Invertzoo (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to your changes, Doc James, now it reads well and the meaning is clear. Good work. Invertzoo (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Invertzoo/Archive_76&oldid=1251681498"