Crawdaunt

Your submission at Articles for creation: Howardula aoronymphium has been accepted

Howardula aoronymphium, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bennv3771 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Drosophila neotestacea has been accepted

Drosophila neotestacea, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Gpkp (u • t • c) 18:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

articles/Howardula aoronymphium

hi I wanted to thank you for your contributions, BTW might you have any relation to the article content of either Howardula aoronymphium or Drosophila neotestacea, please feel free to leave me a note, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC;

• [1]thank you for responding
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest please read....Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships. does not matter if you are being paid or not, COI can be via different reasons, should you have further questions please leave either myself or User_talk:Doc_James a note, --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• pinged Doc James
• thank you for your further response[2]
• you had indicated I am loosely related to the topics as a former colleague of a researcher who works on the Drosophila*Spiroplasma*Howardula system[3] were any of the current authors you are citing 'multiple times' (Hamilton, Jaenike , Ballinger or some other author) a former colleague?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

thank you for your response, it does clarify--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

A cup of hot tea to welcome you!

Hello, Crawdaunt, 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
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
• Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• The Signpost, our newspaper.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! --MainlyTwelve (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like no one welcomed you, so I thought I'd leave this message for you. Great contributions so far!--MainlyTwelve (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Drosophila innubila) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Drosophila innubila.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hughesdarren: Thanks :) Crawdaunt (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Jaenimonas drosophilae) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Jaenimonas drosophilae.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

nice work - good idea to add details to citations - look at the changes I made and ping me if you need help

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Drosophila quinaria species group) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Drosophila quinaria species group.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hughesdarren: Hey! I have recently revised the Drosophila quinaria species group page quite a bit, including an image, a systematics section, and increased information content for other sections. I was wondering if this qualifies the article to be upgraded to C-class from its current rating of Start class? Unsure how revisions to the grading scale work. Thanks! - Crawdaunt (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd rate it as C, the assessment criteria are a bit subjective but the breakdown is here, Wikipedia:Content assessment, keep up the good work! Hughesdarren (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Hughesdarren:Thanks! I look forward to improving it further and perhaps even reach B status. A is probably out of reach given the scope of the topic and the total information content out there; at least for now. If/when I feel it is perhaps of B quality, I'm guessing a moderator/reviewer such as yourself needs to review it? If so, mind if I reach out again if/when that happens? Cheers, thanks for the info and help! - Crawdaunt (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, be a pleasure! Hughesdarren (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Hughesdarren: I have added a number of image captions and provided a great deal more context in various sections (e.g. the gut microbiome, parasitization, population genetics and speciation). I was wondering if the article is complete enough to be considered B-class at this point. I feel like it's on the cusp. Cheers Crawdaunt (talk) 09:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Drosophila quinaria species group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Feminization (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Drosophila tenebrosa) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Drosophila tenebrosa.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thanks. Please include WP Insects (or other appropriate Wikiprojects) on pages you create

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hydronium Hydroxide}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Drosophila quinaria species group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lactate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Taxobox

Hi, we use {{Speciesbox}} for taxoboxes for species. There only needs to be a taxonomy template for the genus. I'm always happy to help if you leave me a message on my talkpage. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Steinernema carpocapsae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armyworm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Imd pathway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transcription (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Morganellaceae, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Providencia and Morganella (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Frontiers media

Frontiers journals don't pass our relevant sourcing guidelines. Guy (help!) 16:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Guy, I imagine this is beyond your power, but a blanket on Frontiers media seems odd. Frontiers in Immunology is a well-respected journal in the field (as I understand). They even list their reviewers and editors on each article. While I can respect being cautious of predatory publishing, and know Frontiers was initially on Beall's list, the Wikipedia policy (as I understand from the message given to me during editing) is simply that a flag is placed on Frontiers citations, and that the default assumption should not be that the information is false, but rather should be considered with additional care. Crawdaunt (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

September 2021

Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Beans, Beans, the Musical Fruit, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Sundayclose. I have updated to provide a source for The Simpsons reference. The explanation of the joke I do not have a citation for. The Beans Beans the Musical Fruit page is constantly targeted by a war changing the lyrics between "Musical" and "Magical." The default of the page has long since settled on musical, supported by the references within. The edit explaining the flatulence aspect being similar to a brass instrument is simply the common sense explanation of the joke. This is such a ubiquitous and simple thing there is no peer-reviewed or philosophical discussion of the matter beyond blogs and social media. I could just as easily create a blog of my own and link to this as if it supported the source, like others have both in support of Musical and Magical. I propose resolving this issue by simply including a "citation needed" tag. I hope this suffices to keep the explanation on the page, but also allow the explanation to fulfill its original intent of preventing page vandalism by providing a logic behind beans being musical. Finding a satisfying logic for why beans are magical based on their ability to produce flatulence is far more flimsy. In this sense, the burden of proof via citation does not apply (in my opinion), as the proof is the logic itself. Nonetheless, a citation would be welcome, and so a citation needed tag seems appropriate.Crawdaunt (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I respectfully disagree about something being a "common sense explanation". The core policy is WP:V (which you probably already know), but also please see WP:Common knowledge and WP:NOTBLUE. It needs a source if it's restored, not a "citation needed" tag. It's not good practice to make or restore edits and use that tag instead of a source. Widespread use of that practice would result in a proliferation of unsourced material and tags that remain in articles for years. I'm not directing this at you, but that bad practice is often done by editors who don't want to be bothered to find a source. I'm not sure I understand your point about a blog, but if you are commenting about other editors' inappropriate sourcing to blogs, I agree, per WP:SELFPUB. Thanks for the citation to the trivia item. Sundayclose (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

My point is you're asking for a citation to something that equates to common knowledge. This is such a mundane thing that there is no authoritative source that will settle once and for all that the reason beans are musical is because farts sound like brass instruments. Any book, magazine, blog, or other source of media would just as easily be argued as one person's opinion. There is no objective external fact here. There is only the internal logic of the joke. You'd be hard-pressed to find an authoritative citation that clearly outlines that the joke "Knock knock. Who's there? Interrupting cow. Interrupting cow wh-? MOOOOOOO!" is technically a reference to the fact that cows moo, and the joke is premised on the fact that there is a cow at the door that has interrupted the recipient in the middle of their sentence. Wikipedia is the exact type of information source that would be so neutral in tone and over-the-top in explanation to actually bother explaining this. We're literally writing paragraphs about the merits of "Beans Beans the Musical Fruit." I respectfully disagree and request that you don't make this decision unilaterally.Crawdaunt (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course I don't make any content decision unilaterally. Neither of us does. But core policies, including WP:V, are determined by broad consensus of the entire Wikipedia community. The default on Wikipedia is to follow policies unless there is overwhelming consensus otherwise. I agree with you that there is a frequent problem of editors changing the wording from "musical" to "magical", especially without a reliable source. I have reverted that change many times. But the solution isn't to fix that problem by violating a policy and adding an additional unsourced edit. All of that being said, I don't think there is any disagreement that the term "musical" is based on the sound of the fart because sound is an inherent part of music, but the specifics of describing that sound as a "brass instrument" go well beyond the simple word "sound". That is a point which involves interpretation (i.e., original research). That is the issue described in WP:Common knowledge and WP:NOTBLUE. What may be obvious or common sense reasoning to you (and me for that matter) isn't necessarily obvious to the entire English-speaking world. Another point (though not as important) is that adding your proposed sentence likely will not significantly reduce the frequency of editors putting "magical" into the article. Most editors who are unaware of (or don't respect) the requirement for a reliable source would make that edit anyway. The title of the article includes "musical", but that has had little effect on such editors. Editors contributing unsourced material or original research is a frequent problem all over Wikipedia because there is no editorial oversight except through policies and experienced editors who try to maintain those policies. The problem is managed by editors like you and me who have the page on our watchlists, revert the change, and leave a standard notice on the talk page of the offending editor. If necessary, a page can be semiprotected or protected. Usually protection is used when there is frequent disruptive editing. Since this article doesn't get much traffic, I'm not sure what an admin would consider to be frequent disruptive editing, but making a protection request is always an option. I do appreciate your efforts in maintaining this article. Thanks for the discussion. I think if you want to pursue this further, the discussion should be moved to the article's talk page for any interested editor to see. You have my permission to copy-paste this discussion to the talk page if you feel the need. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed made a thread on the article talk page, including sources to the general notion of brass instruments specifically. I really just think this falls under the common knowledge clause, and disagree that inserting brass is somehow an interpretation that bears a citation-level burden of proof.

As you mentioned, the page doesn’t see much traffic. The Talk page even less so. My requested edit will languish there indefinitely without resolution unless you and I can agree on a suitable compromise. I’m happy to soften the wording like “one interpretation is ____, based on the common perception that…” or something to that effect. Future comments/replies to the Talk page.Crawdaunt (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's wait to see if someone else weighs in on the talk page. If that doesn't happen in a reasonable time, the standard steps in WP:DR can be used if you wish. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Recent MDPI revert

Your recent revert was good. I think it would be worth taking a look at other edits by that editor -- their history smacks strongly of a COI. (I don't have any time to do this myself at the moment unfortunately.) --JBL (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

JBL, I suspect the same. I checked their profile and they describe themselves as liking "the open science movement." Now that you mention it, they also went through many MDPI journal pages updating minor things: no issues I could see there though, mostly minor things like updating a journal page to "publishes monthly not quarterly". I wouldn't worry about calling out a COI just yet. Crawdaunt (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

MDPI (and others) Rejection rate

Hi, I agree that MDPI's source about MDPI's rejection rate isn't the best one. Do you know about some better source for this number? It could be valuable also for other journals.Karlaz1 (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello! These statistics are usually internal statistics. I think an interesting read on the topic is: https://paolocrosetto.wordpress.com/2021/04/12/is-mdpi-a-predatory-publisher/, which includes rebuttal commentary from Volker Beckmann (MDPI editor) in the comments that is referred to in the lead-in to the article. But the critical issue specifically with trusting MDPI's own statistics on its rejection rate is that the way articles are entered into its system changed drastically between 2016-2020 (see:https://paolocrosetto.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/lag_ridge_new_colors.png).

I'm afraid any attempt to compare across publishers would also require a standardized reporting style, and so I do not think it is a good idea to even try this. Certainly not if you are the one doing original research to accumulate this data (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research). In general any comparisons of MDPI to other publishers should absolutely come only from external sources (i.e. not MDPI). Any data MDPI self-reports (like total papers published) is more appropriate for Wikipedia, but it would still be better to find a 3rd party that has vetted that info for accuracy. Crawdaunt (talk) 12:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I think that for this statement (total number of articles - not rejection rate) probably the WoS is the best. Because you can filter publishers there by the total research outputs. But there are 2 problems with WoS: 1) The stats you can see only through academic wifi (thanks to subscription - probably) 2) [[WP:OR]]. But I don't think it is really [[WP:OR]] because you just use the data from database.Karlaz1 (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah WP:OR is tough to nail down. The mantra of Wiki is that we "are followers, not leaders." This took getting used to for me. All the info is out there, so why can't I collect it and cite it? But even collecting data can be WP:OR. Not because the data don't exist, but because of the framing you provide for it. For some questions it's simple... if you want to just collect total pubs, and put them all in a list, I think you can collect all that yourself from individual pages and put them all in a list. But if you try to compare something like rejection rates, again, not all journals report rejections the same. So even WoS is not a reliable source for the question at hand, even if it is a reliable source for data relating to the question. A third party should be cited that takes that data, considers its values and limitations, and synthesizes it in an academic way. Even just citing a number can be biased, because of the way the number is generated and how it's framed. So in the spirit of being followers, not leaders, we really ought to let a 3rd party determine if that number is a fair representation of the thing it claims to represent. Crawdaunt (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, agree, maybe some article on this issue will be published.Karlaz1 (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Flames 2021-22 season

The Flames' captaincy was vacant, the entire 2021-22 season. They went with four alternate captains instead. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems good. Just for personal clarification: did no player wear a C in any game? Or just no captain named? Thought they rotated so there was a designated player to talk to refs. Crawdaunt (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Nobody wore the "C" during the season. Four players rotated three "A"s. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Baramicin has been accepted

Baramicin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

 DIVINE  05:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)