User talk:Jackhynes/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

WP:PRIM

Great job moving this project along! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it was a lot of tedious copying and pasting from Wikiproject Birds! Hopefully it'll get going now everything is easier to do. Jack (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope! :) I know I've been a slacker and could have had most of the missing articles at least created as stubs. I'm starting a new job this week, so I don't know how much spare time I'll have, but I'll see what I can do. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bactrian camel pz.jpg

Hi. I'm pretty sure this is your image Image:Bactrian camel pz.jpg. Would you please change the license from {{pd-user}} to {{pd-self}}? I'm trying to clear out the category. Thanks for your contributions. If you have questions or need help, please feel free to ask me. MECU≈talk 13:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Jack (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For making it easier for me to join. Yojimbo501 (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Beastlessmall.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Beastlessmall.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

6/1 DYK

On 1 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sexual dimorphism in non-human primates, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford ^Pray 02:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Devvocap1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Devvocap1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

message

I'm sending this to all the wikiproject:mammals participants. There's a naming guideline up for discussion on the talk page, and the more people get involved the more valid any consensus drawn. Ironholds 19:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TokyoStory.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:TokyoStory.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Primate Article

Sorry for the near edit-conflict there. :) And thank you for all the great work carrying the ball on improving the article. I can't believe it has been taking this much to effort to get to GA, but it certainly is a much better article now than at the beginning of the process (I think at this point it is better than a lot of GAs). And the Primate article deserves to be as good as possible. Rlendog (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

British biodiversity

Jack, sounds good to me - let me know once it's up & running. SP-KP (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Suggest you publicise this proposal at WP:BIRD and other Tree of Life projects. SP-KP (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject British Biota

After it's created, you can promote it at {{Announcements/Community bulletin board}} OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Howler Monkeys

Good job cleaning up the howler monkey article. Unfortunately, the C-class rating doesn't seem to work for Primates. It still shows in the template and the assessment page of the Primate project as Start class. I've tried it on other articles and it didn't work either. Do you know what we need to know to get the C rating to work for Primates? Rlendog (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Good spot, although its only because I updated the wrong template; the Central America one not the PrimateTalk! I made C class work in the template last week so I'm not sure why its not working for you. This article shows C class articles. Cheers, Jack (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried a few weeks ago - before the assessment table was set up. So it appears to be working now. I'm not sure why it didn't before. Rlendog (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I had to add a few lines of code to PrimateTalk to make it work a few days ago, seems to be fine. I do like that there is a C class option. Jack (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland

Hi. Well done for not being put off by the naming debate! Are we now "go", do you think? Do you need any help setting the project up? SP-KP (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much I think, I won't be able to help out much until Friday, but you can go ahead and start if you'd like. The main things at the beginning I guess will be guidelines/what to include/what format to use/what goals etc. Cheers, Jack (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Primate is now a Good Article

File:Mammal barnstar.png		The Mammal Barnstar
		For all your work getting Primate up to GA status, I hereby award you the Mammal barnstar. Rlendog (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Create categories for Biota of Great Britain and Ireland

Hello, Jackhynes. You have new messages at Tinucherian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- 05:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Red Colobus

Concerning Miss Waldron's Red colobus monkey: as the most recent publication on the matter -"Update on the Search for Miss Waldron’s Red Colobus Monkey", International Journal of Primatology, Volume 26, Number 3 June, 2005 by Scott McGraw says that it probably is not extinct - yet. Since he is probably the most knowledgeable expert on it, the case is not proven. In addition the WP article describes Miss Waldron's as a species; it is generally considered a subspecies anyway so the text in the article is misleading and not informative so it is not appropriate. (This is to ignore the fact that the whole subject is an ongoing tragedy but that's a different matter altogether).--Mountwolseley (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland

No probs, will do - I should have thought of that myself. SP-KP (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

proposal fine with me jimfbleak (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

List of British butterflies (alphabetical by English name)

Hi Jack!

Just wondered why you would bother to delete this article. Yes, it's pointless to Lepidopterists, but it probably has some value to those who know a butterfly's name, but not its taxonomic position... What say you, my fellow Wikipedian? Should we reinstate?—GRM (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't deleted the article, it's just a redirect. I think that because all the common names are used in List of butterflies of Great Britain there seems to be no need for List of British butterflies (alphabetical by English name). There don't seem to be any other examples of listing species by common name, other species lists show species under their family or genus. A possible compromise would be to add sortable tables (example here) to List of butterflies of Great Britain so that the user can sort the butterflies by either specific name or common name. Maybe we should find a consensus at WP:LEP? Cheers, Jack (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

List of British ... moved to List of ... of Great Britain

Hello again, Jack!

'Fraid I have to take exception to the moves along the lines indicated in the subheading. British is commonly accepted as the adjectival form of UK as well as GB. At least for the Butterflies list, it is not a list of GB butterflies, but of UK ones (inclusion of Real's Wood White which is confined to Northern Ireland in the UK). Can we come to some agreement on either (a) reversion to "British", or (b) change to "of the United Kingdom". Cheers—GRM (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

British is ambiguous and shouldn't be used in science-related topics. Great Britain refers to the island, and as the source of the article is The Moths and Butterflies of Great Britain and Ireland we should name the article accurately. Any species on the page that are from Northern Ireland should be moved to List of butterflies of Ireland. Great Britain and Ireland are geographical terms whereas United Kingdom is not. Sorry that I made all the moves without consulting the relevant WikiProjects but I thought it best to just get it done, hope you can see where I'm coming from. Cheers, Jack (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jack,

Much as I understand the "geography" versus "politics" argument, it unfortunately breaks down beyond islands; and, since most countries are continental, the "political" side has to win? Northern Ireland is politically part of the UK, just as Corsica is part of France, so... the "correct" fauna listing is by country. In an ideal (and perhaps unified) world, I too would go with geography, but this is life on Planet Earth, I'm afraid—GRM (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

But the source text talks about Great Britain specifically in the title, not the UK? If it were classified by political boundaries wouldn't it be United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland? I know flora is classified by geography but I'm not so sure about all types of fauna. The term British is very ambiguous and should really be avoided it could refer to: British Isles, Great Britain or United Kingdom. Cheers, Jack (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your feedback on the bird list (introduced and feral) on the Bird Project page. For the butterflies, I would vote for transfer to UK, as that's "our" (lepidopterists') basis. OK with you?—GRM (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

that's "our" (lepidopterists') basis: still the source text, written by lepidopterists, classifies butterflies by geographical and not political boundaries. Does it make sense to change it to UK? Cheers, Jack (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You have a point there, but then if we follow the source the list should become "of Great Britain and Ireland" when there is already List of butterflies of Ireland (apparently based on the old British one). I think that I want to complain of a headache and give up at this point...—GRM (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It'll be worth the discussion in the end hopefully! I reckon we should keep those two as separate lists, so long as the source (which I don't have a copy of), shows the range of each species. Cheers, Jack (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:Biota of Great Britain and Ireland

Hello again, Jack

Happy to lend a hand wherever you think I can. Just bear in mind that I am self-styled guardian of the UK Butterflies project (unofficial), which still has a long way to go. That said, it may reasonably be considered a subset of your WP :-) —GRM (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Primate at FAC

I don't want to come across as a giant phallus. What I'm trying to do here is increase participation at FAC, hopefully in a non-artificial way: I do what I can, you do what you can, and I invite copyeditors from WP:GOCE and point them to the unresolved questions using bolded comments. If I come across as oppressive, let me know. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've loved the work you've done, great for someone to be bold and just do it. I'll try and keep up to fix your issues, though I've got a lot of work in the run up to Christmas so I won't be working 24/7! Cheers again for the help, and no you don't come across as a "giant phallus"! Jack (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. It's always a gamble to jump in and make a bunch of changes; sometimes the magic works, sometimes I get beat over the head. I'm available to help with getting any biology articles through FAC; I do science, tech and math articles. If you know people struggling to get over the hump, let me know. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Primate at FAC

Sure thing. I'll take a look later. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Primate FA

		The Fauna Barnstar
		For persistence in leading the effort to get Primate to FA status, despite many obstacles including a blatant POV push attempt, I hereby award this barnstar. Congratulations! Rlendog (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Gray Squirrel

I am curious as to the reversion of the British spelling in text referring to occurrence in Britain ? Common names are just that - common, and the local common name is as valid as any other. British readers could easily be confused by the current text (and yes I know that there is a single reference to Grey squirrel very early on). If the article used the scientific name there would be no problem but I believe that the British spelling should be used in this article where appropriate. (.....and I think that you yourself made just that change once and then reverted your own changes - ? Hmmm?. 87.113.109.123 (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:MoS names should be consistent throughout an article, as it is an American native the article should use that style. If you look around the mammal articles, all follow MSW3 for both species and common names. Here is the entry for Sciurus carolinensis. Cheers, Jack (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with the ip user's view, If the article used the scientific name there would be no problem ..., because the common names can be explained in the article without enshrining one of these names above the accepted and unique name to which they all must refer. This is the closest thing to NPOV we can hope for, and it avoids OR, which I'm sure you will agree are very important. The animal is widespread, there are bound to be a page full of common names and variants of spelling, capitilisation (my spellchecker is suggesting this is wrong!), and spacing of each of these names. Using the correct name avoids all of these issues, and many others, I can virtually guarantee this is why every other comprehensive site arranges its entries and title on the scientific name.

Anyway, I'm here on a not unrelated issue ... cygnis insignis 10:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

MSW3

Hi Jack, can you spare sometime in helping to find a solution to a 'common' problem in our document. You made this assertion, amongst others, at the move discussion here: It [MSW3] has experts in each order of mammals who decide on the common names. Please provide evidence that this is the intention of the work, and that this has widespread acceptance (outside of wikipedia, of course). Can you also link the consensus that supports wedding our article titles to the common name field of MSW3, something they do not do. I believe that I am well versed in the rationales put forward in support of common names, so can save yourself some typing by taking those as read. Thanks in advance, and cheers for your contributions to biota here. cygnis insignis 10:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

While I agree it may not be wise to follow a single reference for mammal taxonomy, using the species name doesn't solve the problem. Often the common name is more stable than the species name, especially as molecular studies reassess populations. The use of MSW3 decreases the amount of time wasted debated article titles, this method has worked excellently at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds (see here). As for the intention of the work "That first edition was prepared by 189 professional mammalogists from 23 countries. It was coordinated by a special Checklist Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists. During the ensuing decade, it became the industry standard for mammalian taxonomy, providing an authoritative reference for nonspecialists and establishing an overall taxonomic hypothesis for testing by systematic mammalogists." [1] (not a great source as it is describing itself). As for linking common names with MSW3 see here. I think you should ask the same question at WP:MAM. Hope I've answered your questions. Cheers, Jack (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Common names

You might want to review Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). Cheers, Jack (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed that page. It sucks. It is disruptive. It is a bludgeon used by bigots and noncontributors to justify noncompliance with core policy and ignore the reliable sources we are trying to explain. Cheers, cygnis insignis 18:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Then try and sort out a structured discussion to solve the issues you have with the current naming system. Jack (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Bearded Dragon | Pogona

Your are welcome to do so. I know about that one - pretty cool hey! My removal of it prompted the response from the the editor; when he stopped engaging me in debate and realised the full consequences, he was as pleased as I was. Cheers, cygnis insignis 17:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please undo your revert. Please also supply a rationale when reverting, it was not vandalism. As it is, the article is not about genus; it is about one or several species of Pogona, and basically a pretty shabby article. It is a notable topic, especially as far as ips, newbies, and vandals are concerned. Let them have it, let me pass, and let me see about the improvement of the related topic of the species and genus. cygnis insignis 19:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If the article in question is about the husbandry of keeping various species of bearded dragons, rather than being about a particular species or genus, would it make sense to rename the article "Bearded Dragon husbandry"? Rlendog (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay I've reinstated your removal, though I agree with Rlendog the page should be under a different name if it's dealing with Bearded Dragons as pets. Cheers, Jack (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I see the how the 'in captivity' aspect can be improved. The term I've given, and perhaps 'husbandry', would identify those in zoological gardens and wildlife parks (and those bizarre exhibitions at remote gas stations :)

The terms would also cover those animals raised for a product, like the 'Pet skunk' example and crocodile farms, but this might also as tackled as the end product. It could also be viewed as a spinout of pet lizard, if that article existed. Perhaps it should. I would be reluctant to invent a name for the page, but I think new and separate articles on these topic would be seen as an improvement by all the editors concerned. Wikipedians have previously tried shoehorning facts into articles on taxa, but I can see how numerous articles can be created and expanded with appropriate links to each other. I will give it some more thought, and seek more advice, thanks again. cygnis insignis 02:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Primates, Secundates, Tertiates and Quaternates

Hi Jack, I get a copy of the classification of Mammals from the article “Nouvelle classification des Mammifères” (1839) by Blainville, where the taxa Primates, Secundates, Tertiates and Quaternates appear. I have scanned it, but I am unable to edit it for Wikipedia. I've thought maybe you can. If so, give an email address and I'll send it to you, so that you edit it in these articles: "Primates", "Secundates", "Tertiates", "Quaternates" and "Henri Marie Ducrotay de Blainville". Yours. --Vasconicus (talk) 07:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Vasconicus, my address is jackhynes_AT_gmail_DOT_com. It would great to have a look at it! Cheers, Jack (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jack. I've just sent it to you. If there is any problem, please let me know. --Vasconicus (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: popular pages

No problem, I added Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals to the list, so the data for March will be the first page. I'll leave a note on the project talk page when its done. Mr.Z-man 06:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Red-fronted Brown Lemur

Why did you restore this from Red-fronted Lemur? This seems to have outdated and unsourced IUCN information and a name that differs from MSW3. Rlendog (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

My fault, got a little confused over it all -- I'll revert now. Jack (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I saw your note to me. This is getting very confusing. Rlendog (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you can access the article splitting the species, you're probably in the best position to address the split. So I'll defer to whatever you think best. Rlendog (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've sent you an email. Jack (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Please use reflist not < references />

Hi there,

Another user has also asked me to do this I think, however a different user said it didn't really matter. As you have also requested this, I have changed this in the bot's code.

Thanks,

The Helpful One 21:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I find there is a big difference. Cheers again, Jack (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Annotations

Again: I have tried this, 15-20 months ago, when there was less editing on Wikipedia talk pages. I have seen references getting lost more often when I put them on Talk pages. Don't you think I never add references on Talk pages? I do, when it is crucial. Most of the time, it gets ignored or someone foulmouths me for suggesting their pet article needs an overhaul (I do not do horse stuff anymore. Period.). When I set refs as annotations, it is (usually) minor and insignificant stuff. Things that simply cannot be put into the article at that date, and most likely will not in months to come. Make them more accessible, maybe - but there are more important refs to add (usually) than the stuff I add, i.e. some new liver fluke species found in a moorhen or the color vision of a particular butterfly or whatnot. I do not care about most stuff that makes headlines in New Scientist.

"often these little notes get deleted and lost" - I do not remember seeing any annotation deleted by people who didn't know what they were doing more than a very few times. And how should they get "lost"? We have backup servers, we have edit histories.

Altogether, my question is: what harm does it do? We do not have the annotation tag to fill up whitespace in the markup applet box, but so that people use it. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with you doing it, I just thought you might want to do it in a more accessible fashion. Jack (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Merging White-collared Brown Lemur and Gray-headed Lemur

I'm not sure how often you sign in to Wiki, but I am wanting to finally merge White-collared Brown Lemur and Gray-headed Lemur today. However, I would like some feedback as to which common name to use, per my question on Talk:Gray-headed_Lemur. If you can, please let me know how you feel. –Visionholder (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on respective talk pages. Jack (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of "Honeycomb worm"

The article "Honeycomb worm" has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article with quote around title moved and left redirect behind.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

BAP habitats

Thanks! I'll try to get round to these some time. SP-KP (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Two possibilities ... either we link to generic pages about the habitats themselves ... this should be possible in all cases although perhaps not fully (e.g.) "mesotrophic lakes" .... or we create a page about the inclusion of each of these habitats in the BAP (called something like "mesotrophic lakes as a UK Biodiversity Action Plan habitat". The latter is a lot of work, but would make for a very interesting article. SP-KP (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

List of primate traits

When you wrote the list of distinguishing features for Primate, had you seen the list of 30 traits (and the corresponding discussion) on pages 47 and 48 of Primate Ecology and Social Structure Volume 1: Lorises, Lemurs and Tarsiers by Sussman? I'm wondering if we might be better off using this list rather than the one currently used. It seems to focus on traits that are unique to primates, rather than on traits that are often shared by other mammals. If you have access to the book, what are your thoughts? –Visionholder (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have access to that book; the book I used is a general vertebrate book, so not much detail was included. It sounds like the 30-trait list you have would be much more suitable. Feel free to rewrite it whenever you have the time. Cheers, Jack (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do that. At this point, my first priority is to finish the Lemur page re-write before I leave for Madagascar in October. If I do not get around to it by then, look for the revision in January or February. –Visionholder (talk) 04:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, it'll be alright in it's current form for the time being. Hope you have a great time in Madagascar, I'm off to China tomorrow for the next month, wonder if I'll find the elusive Golden Snub-nosed Monkey? Cheers, Jack (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Algae

WikiProject Algae was started as a meeting space on Wikipedia for improving the taxonomic representations of the groups of organisms called algae. Please join other editors at the talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Algae) to discuss a higher level taxonomy for algae to be used on Wikipedia.

I have a list of editors interested in Algae, and my notes say that you are interested in the algae of the UK. I don't know if you're interested in the taxonomies, but if you have experience, articles wanted, images to provide, please stop by and contribute. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with Silky Sifaka Photos please

Dear Jack,

It has been about a year since you helped me with the 'silky sifaka' Wikipedia page that I wrote. I am still a novice with Wikipedia and still dont know my way around. I just had a MAJOR problem though. Some random lady took one of my silky sifaka pics off Wikipedia Commons, made a poster and started selling it on Zazzle!!! She also plagiarized all the text from one of my articles. Anyway, she has removed it and apologized. But what can I do to prevent this from happening again?! Here is the Wikipedia Commons Photo, my photo, she stole:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Silky_Sifaka.jpg

I study the silky sifaka (www.erikpatel.com), have been doing so for eight years, so I take all of these indiscretions personally.

Thanks Much for your help,

email me direct, might be easier (for me): patel.erik@gmail.com

Simpona Fotsy Simponafotsy (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be nosy, but the post mentioned a lemur, and thus caught my eye. Technically, according to the licensing you chose, the image is in the public domain. This means it is "public property", and available for anyone to use freely for any purpose. If you were looking for attribution, you should probably consider a multi-license like Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. As for trying to prohibit commercial use, I suggest reading about free licenses. Note that Wiki does not allow non-commercial licenses, as explained by this cartoon. As for the article you wrote, it may also be copied per WP:COPYRIGHT. When you edit a page, beneath the text editing box, it reads: "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." So technically the article isn't "yours." Personally, I reference my lemur article re-writes on my resume, but if people want to know exactly what text is mine, I point them to my user page, where I keep track of the diffs from major edits. (The history that Wiki keeps documents your contributions, even if the content is over-written.) Hope this helps... –Visionholder (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Erik, I remember well, you take beautiful photos! Visionholder has given a great explanation of the licensing issues you have. I'm not sure what more I can tell you, but if you would like any other help don't hesitate to ask. Cheers, Jack (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Jackhynes! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 103 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Angelo Moore - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Mahou no Star Magical Emi

Many salutations!!! Profuse gratitude for your recent contribution here; still, you mention that the article is incomplete and needs to have references and I am a bit perplexed by that. While the article being incomplete is straightforward but a little difficult to solve since I have only seen the first ten episodes, I am at a loss for what cleanup you think needs to take place. Please elaborate in greater detail.

Dairi no Kenkyo (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dairi, the descriptions need a small amount of wikifying (i.e. words like deus ex machina), and maybe the titles of the remaining episodes. Try mimicking the style of other featured lists to draw inspiration. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Jack (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Jane Goodall

Hello, I see you've been working on some of the issues raised at the GA review of Jane Goodall. I'm not sure if you thought it was still open. I had left the GA nomination on the talk page when I failed the GA, so I'm sorry if that misled you. Anyway, it's good to see someone improving the article. If you feel it's ready for GA again, you'll need to renominate it.--BelovedFreak 16:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed it failed before I started so no false pretences :) It's an article that needs attention and since you've given such great comments I thought it would be a waste to not use them. Cheers, Jack (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, no problem, just thought I'd check! The review page came up on my watchlist and then I noticed I hadn't removed the nomination notice at the time. Anyway, good luck with it... --BelovedFreak 22:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Cultivated plant taxonomy

I have upgraded this article now - it needs some tweaks but I'd appreciate your feedback again.Granitethighs 08:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Cultivated plant taxonomy (again)

I have now ticked off most of your comments which have been extremely useful - but I need some feedback on a couple of matters please.

• With Ref 24, 25, 28, 33, 40, 41 and 42 should not be in the references as they were not used as a reference. Maybe they could be linked in a Further reading section. I must be missing something obvious but why are they not being used as references?
• I do not see anything in WP:images indicating that images should not have a size parameter or that they should not be put on the lhs, or that all portrait images should have "upright". What does "upright" do and where do I find these recommendations?

Many thanks. Granitethighs 08:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Answered here. Cheers, Jack (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have now done almost all of what you have asked. I have read about the images but am still a little uncertain as to what is acceptable or not. I have just tried to fit in the images as pleasingly-to-the-eye as possible. I am happy for you to do whatever is necessary to observe WP procedure - or to give me an example that I can follow. On the references, again I've tried to improve the formatting, otherwise I'm not sure what to do and am happy for you to put them right or give me an example to follow. Is there anything else now?Granitethighs 21:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Your help in getting CPT up to GA standard is much appreciated - thanks. Granitethighs 14:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Heading tag in MSW3 references

Hi. Just wondering why you removed the heading tag in the MSW3 reference in Chlorocebus? Regards. --Stfg (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen the template being used like that before, so I was trying to keep things consistent. Looking at it again, it's possible that the heading was actually superior so I'll reinstate it. Cheers, Jack (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems that the heading is fairly common in some mammal areas (e.g. antelopes) and less so in others, including primates. I prefer it because it tells readers who access the web version exactly which page they will get if they follow the link. Cheers, Simon --Stfg (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

State of WikiProject Primates

Dear Jack, thanks for the comments and in the next days I´ll put some effort into these projects. Actually I´ve been working on projects in wikipedia en español, as I gave as a class project in my primatology course the job of creating a wikipedia article (en español) and uploading it. But there is a lot of cleanup and I am still, after all, a beginner and only recently have begun devoting time to these primate projects. And I have many other primate projects outside of wikipedia. But your comments as a person with more experience are very helpful and they give me the "push" to dedicate the time necessary to make these articles into something of value for readers. Saludos, Huicocos (thomasdefler) [edit] adjustments to article

Today I am mostly fixing references to agree with Wikipedia use and I add a new researcher Matthews who has just published in 2009.

I rearranged Callicebus torquatus (yellow-handed titi) and worked on the taxonomy section and am little by little wikifying the references. The taxonomy of the Callicebus torquatus complex is up in the air. The Van Roosmalen et al. concept is not accepted by many primatologists, so I briefly have tried to explain the problem in the taxonomy. Huicocos (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Name that source!

Since you have worked with numerous sources, online and offline, regarding primates, I was wondering if you could check what you have access to and see if you can find the source for the anatomy information on the Slow Loris article. I strongly suspect it is a copyright violation, but I can't find it online or in my primate books, including "Primate Anatomy: An Introduction, 3rd edition", "Walker's Primates of the World", or anything I could find on Google Books. The section was added in one edit by an anonymous user in 2009. Knowing the source will give us a reference to work from, and well as give us grounds to delete the material (thus making it more likely we'll get the article featured in DYK when we piece it together). If you can help track this down, I'd appreciate it. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The only information I can provide is that the text was added by someone from Columbia University, a university which does have links to primates, though probably not slow lorises. Cheers, Jack (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The text has been unreferenced for so long that it has been removed. We'll be replacing it shortly. Did you want to write the anatomy section? No one's claimed it and my hands are rather full with the conservation and evolution/taxonomy sections. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to write that section but I will have to rely on online references as I don't have access to any primate books at the moment. I also won't be able to start before next week. Cheers, Jack (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Girl Unit

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Girl Unit requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. E. Fokker (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)