Mick wackers

Whomever has priviledges to rectify the Wiki mistake in nomenclature should please change the header from Southern Dibbler to Dibbler. Thanks.

Luckily I wandered onto this page when looking at my watchlist so I can clear this up for you. First of all, queries like this are better placed at WikiProject Mammals so that people will find them - not many people will stumble across your talkpage to answer things! Secondly, while in some ways I agree with the dibbler thing, the project uses Mammal Species of the World as its reference for common names, and that august publication uses "Southern Dibbler" (and also Sandstone Dibbler). I would suggest that if you want to take this further you open a discussion at either WP:MAMMALS (the link above) or at Talk:Southern Dibbler. Finally, always remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~), which will create a signature for you. Welcome to Wikipedia! Frickeg (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Frickeg, thanks for your reply.

I have previously posted Dibbler information stating this is incorrect nomenclature (see historical data where you can see several published research papers from Australia) and was given the same answer. Its very shortsighted that Wiki uses an American published book to name mammals around the world, however I am telling you categorically that your information is wrong. Please do not be ignorant and claim that because you find it in a book it is correct. We all know that many books contain errors.

I deal directly with the Western Australia scientists who are in the field as well as the Dibbler Recovery Team. I recently discussed this with Dr Tony Friend who is in charge of the Dibbler Recovery Plan, and he agreed with me. I can assure you categorically that no one calls them southern dibblers. And further to your reference on the so called august Mammal Species of the World I strongly suggest you look at the latest version where the American publishers have corrected their mistake and now call this animal by the name that the scientists and academic in Western Australia all call it - "The Dibbler". Mick wackers (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Mick wackers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Hi Mick. I came across your edits to Dibbler and moved it to that name, your citations were compelling. Let me know if you need any assistance with your contributions. Cheers, cygnis insignis

Sorry for the delay in answering, but option "a)" is correct. cygnis insignis 07:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Gilbert's Potoroo

Hello, Mick wackers! I hate to do this, but I had to revert the edit to the above article. The reasons were:

1. Personal correspondence, unless published in a reliable source, are not suitable references.
2. If it is not published in a reliable source, Wikipedia unfortunately considers it original research.

I'm not doubting the content, but I was hoping you could provide a better source, like a published paper by Dr. Tony Friend. If there is something you could point to that others can verify, that would be greatly appreciated! Feel free to re-add the info to the article once you can link to a published source. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

response to Gilbert's Potoroo

Hi Tombstone, part of the information supplied is cutting edge, and as this tracking only took place last week (i.e. 2nd - 4th June 2009) clearly there will not be a paper published on this yet. Besides these scientists are too busy to publish papers on every tracking effort, along with the point that there is not sufficient scientific data to publish on a 3 night tracking expedition.

There are well known sources that quote the information and if you bothered to read the supplied references listed at the bottom of the article you would have come across this information (look at the Gilberts Potoroo Action Group, or the "GILBERT’S POTOROO (Potorous gilbertii) RECOVERY PLAN" written by Tony Friend and Jackie Courtenay, or indeed the other publications by Dr Friend).

There will not be a reference to "focusing on potoroos (female 93 and male 126)". When I was an academic it was accepted that references are only required when the information is unknown - this is the standard for academia the world round as far as I know? In terms of this if you removed the information about female 93 and male 126 your edit would have been correct. Also, many scientific papers / thesis are published with pers.comm. as an accepted manner of communicating information, so I'm wondering why Wiki would be different?

I have had so much hassle getting Dibbler changed to its correct nomenclature on Wiki (spuriously called Southern Dibbler, and the flat earthers insisted it was correct because it was in a book! Sigh...). Now this!!! I am beginning to wonder if most of the Wiki contributors have membership of the flat earth society? Why should I bother adding cutting edge information? Seems like a waste of time to me. I'm happy to leave it and keep the knowledge to those who are experts in the field. Is this what Wiki wishes? Where is the transparency?

I'm not going to change this back, I will leave it to you to do if you wish to read the literature list supplied and read further for yourself.

Regards, Mick wackers

Hello, I can appreciate your frustration, but Wikipedia unfortunately discourages cutting edge information. The reason being is that (quoting from the first of the five core principles of Wikipedia): "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy...Original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and are thus inappropriate." (emphasis mine) I do not intend to discourage you from editing articles on Wikipedia — on the contrary, your tenacity in providing a convincing reason to move "Southern Dibbler" to "Dibbler" is much appreciated — rather I intend to nudge you to the proper understanding of our goal with this project. That goal in this case is verifiability. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not academia, so we cannot fully appreciate cutting edge ideas. ;) On another note, it is ironic that you refer to flat earthers, as there is an essay here that might be exactly what you are feeling: Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat. It is a fun read! I do hope you stick around, and happy editing! Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)