Open main menu


Happy New Year, Elmidae!Edit

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!Edit


Happy New Year!

Hello Elmidae: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Hippopotamus ArticleEdit

I would like to apologize for our previous interactions regarding this page. It appears, for some reason, I am unable to correctly reference the many sources I have stated are in existence. This may be due to my browser or the fact I am currently using a mobile device. If you could fix my mistake, it would be greatly appreciated.

However, this still does not solve the situation regarding the introduced range of the hippopotamus. You have made it clear it is my responsibility to find sources and reference them in the article, but I am unable to do so, for reasons stated above. It is not a hard feat to simply search “Pablo Escobar’s Hippos” or many other things such as “Colombian Hippos”, “South American Hippos” or even “Cocaine Hippos”, so I would suggest you do so. You may be able to do what I cannot. If you can’t do that, I can post several sources here on your talk page.

Regards, - The2016 The2016 (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi The2016, mobile sucks in this regard; sorry. I went and found quite a number of references, but then realized that the topic is already treated at length in the article - Hippopotamus#Invasive_potential - which neither of us seems to have noticed :)
I have however removed the mention from the lede again. Assessments seem to agree that this is a wilding group with the potential to become invasive; it is is not yet an "introduced" population, i.e. reproductively self-sufficient and shown to be stable or expanding. In other word, an interesting fact about invasive behaviour but not a relevant statement about the species' global distribution. Listing it next to the native distribution would be somewhat misleading (particularly since there appear to be intentions to remove the population again). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

RFA commentEdit

Not that I'm a sparkly gem in that regard, but then I'm not running for admin

Let me know when you decide to run. We need more good people. Guettarda (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

You've got mailEdit

Hello, Elmidae. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JC7V (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi JC7V7DC5768, I think this might indeed be a case for AfD. Main claims for notability would seem to comprise one role (non-starring) in a released movie, one in an as yet unreleased and unreviewed movie, and a recurring supporting role in a serial. The rest are bit parts in serial instalments, and short films. That's still on the insufficient side of the WP:NACTOR border, I'd say. I don't see any in-depth coverage referenced in the article, and can't find any in a cursory sweep. Suggest you go for it. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

African bush elephant imageEdit

Why can't we use the old image?--Manwë986 (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Whatever image you have been trying to insert does not appear to actually exist, as evidenced by it not displaying (one was removed from Commons recently as copyright violation; see [1] - not sure if that is the one you are after). Anyway, what's wrong with the current one? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I tried to add in a image of male elephant. And I found one, except that I wrote the wrong image name when editing.--Manwë986 (talk) 09:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC) And I'm just testing if the image name is correct or not.--Manwë986 (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you use the Preview function for that, to avoid gumming up the history, conflicting with other edits, and making live (if only fleetingly) a broken version of the page. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm done, please take a look at it whether is it acceptable or not. --Manwë986 (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Greenhaven, Ga and Neighbors Against Greenhaven being removed from the pageEdit

  • Unclear as to why the content from Neighbors of Greenhaven is being removed from Greenhaven, Ga. It has verifiable sources in that it has been mentioned in not only local media such as (the main metro paper), Decaturish (a local site covering Decatur, which is a city in the proposed Greenhaven) and in a national media outlet, CityLab, as well. :**There is huge opposition to this which is why it has not been adopted into law and this all relates to the article. can you offer specific suggestions on why it keeps being removed and perhaps what can be removed to allow it? It doesn't appear that the content violates any rules.
      • the website address for Neighbors Against Greenhaven continues to be removed and yet Greenhaven's website is clearly a website about advocating for Greenhaven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravelinFool (talkcontribs) 18:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


Would you please tell me how I can create a new separate article by the name of "Dhakir" (apart from Dhikr) with my recently written texts about that? Could you kindly fix it? (in order to keep/use my written text/page)? I mean this issue. I appreciate it. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ali Ahwazi, the main problem here appears to be that the article is being regarded as a dictionary definition, i.e. a mere word definition rather than an encyclopedic treatment, which is something we are trying to avoid for standalone articles. It is however entirely appropriate for sections within articles. I would therefore suggest that you integrate this material as a new subsection into Dhikr, which would keep all the information nicely together. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Alright, so I did it based on what you suggested; well, can you do me an act? I mean would you please make an redirect for this to this page (Dhakir)? I asked you to do so, because if I do so, then I don't precisely know how to remove or modify its previous/old "view history" which presumably will be copied in the new redirect page, then, I'll appreciate it if you do so. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Done. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! ... ;-) ...Edit

Dear Elmidae,  
Thank you very much for reviewing William du Pont; much appreciated.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 13:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


I see this article linked a lot in forums, there is a couple of interesting facts buried in that showcase. cygnis insignis 07:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I suppose so. That octet of late 19th century images could use an overall image caption to make clear what period they come from, and that they are not meant as textbook illustrations for the "physical features" section. I'll look into it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Try not to spoil the in-universe effect, where Coon in mentioned in the same breath as Darwin.
On another matter, in which you have been cited, I find myself distracted from what I intended to do this day, which was to continue working on the 'marsupial moles'. Would you clarify your position (the incidental remark in an edit summary?), so that I might continue with my primary focus, the unobjectionable improvement of the actual content, with whatever arrangements is insisted upon by those concerned with the big and bold letters at the top and gut feeling views on what is 'English'. cygnis insignis 06:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'll expand on it on the talk page, and continue to do my best to ignore your attempts to be as confrontational and disagreeable as possible. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I'm working on some articles for two or three days, you insert yourself into that with about five seconds reflection on your personal distaste with the title, then proceeded to foster drama for a couple hours, complain about the disruption to you personal routine because you pursued that, and eventually gave up. I assumed you thought better of the whole business and that was the end of that. I was being cute about the article above, which I watch for my twisted amusement, I assumed you would recognise what a piece of shit it is; I am not going to apologise if you feel invested in that content and therefore insulted. Is that your grievance now? cygnis insignis 21:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I will not engage further on this. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Something to make you smileEdit

If this has improved your day or made you smile, please consider passing it on to another Wikipedian.

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award.
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

User:SeaBeeDee(talk) 08:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Replacing images while leaving captions in place is not helpful...Edit

...with one exception: when the captions still apply to the new images, which are of higher quality and resolution. Did you realize that? --Poco2 07:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Poco_a_poco - err, no I didn't... my spot check seemed to indicate different, but I see I was mistaken. Sorry, senior moment! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you sir! Poco2 17:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Reception of Enoch in antiquity—Citation consolidation errorsEdit

In this article, a large number of citations were consolidated. However, these citations were to different works by different authors. These works are hosted at the same online library, which uses a catalogue system to name its articles’ URLs and I can see how that system may lead to confusion.

I have not reverted those changes. But you might want to look again at the article to see what I mean and make the necessary corrections?

––Q douglasii (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Q douglasii, I see what you mean. I have reverted that edit. It is likely to be somewhat confusing to the reader, however, if multiple different references share the same name. Would you mind adding a few distinguishing words to the title of each - based on page number or highlighted topic? (can't quite tell which would be more appropriate) Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I’ll try to remember that. It might be a while, though. ––Q douglasii (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add ..Edit

Please add Mammalia in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae to your watchlist. Torres keeps on adding false info there as well. Cheers, BhagyaMani (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Will do. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Elmidae! Torres moved two pages without any discussion: 1) clouded leopard to Mainland Clouded leopard, and 2) Panthera leo fossilis to German Cave Lion. Can you revert this? In case that not, who can? Cheers, -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
BhagyaMani: That guy really has no clue... very effective at baking in the moves by subsequent edits, though :/ I'll ask at WP:RFPM for an admin to do it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

LetsTrack is not an orphan articleEdit

Unless I am mistaking an article is considered an orphan if no other article links to that article. In that case I think you made a mistake for the 5 Weddings article is linked to the LetsTrack article. LetsTrack was mentioned in 5 weddings by a user by the name Dheeraj kumar Guleria and originally linked to the companies website since no wikipedia article existed for 5 wedding. I fixed this by linking the respected article and using the compaies website as as a citation Wearewatching (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Yup, you are right; missed that one. Good call. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

An attemptEdit

I tried talking to cygnis a little at my talk page, but given the "I win" comment, it looks like you're dealing with some battleground behavior as you hinted at in your exasperation at WP Insects. I don't see others easily getting through with that in mind unfortunately, so if it does come to ANI, I'd at least be willing to chime in on that as much as I hate to see it go that way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I see... :/ Yeah, I hope we can avoid escalation - it's such a waste of time. Current project talk seems to be generating some consensus regarding cygnis' house style of naming, and that may be sufficient to remove the casus belli. Fingers crossed. - BTW, if the discussion looks as if it's petering out, I intend to nudge it with a suggested summary, and a proposal that we take the more important issue arising (whether we need to take action to keep articles intact in Google & preview) to RFC level. Might as well deal with it now that we are actively thinking about it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I can see you are busy, but I'm still waiting on your reply at the common bat talk page. You asked to me to fix it for some reason, because it my fault you were making mistakes again? Don't care, I focus on solutions, I want this solved now that you dragged me away from what I doing. cygnis insignis 17:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

What I am currently seeing is you edit-warring again to keep Cistugo in Myotinae [2], where according to the sources provided on the talk page, your own comments on those, and usage in Cistugo and the two species articles, it no longer belongs. The only reason for this, again, appears to be ownership behaviour and a desire to show Pvmoutside what's what. So I guess my reply would be - if you want to be "dismissed", you are welcome to it. As long as the disruptive behaviour stops. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Please try to identify the concern, I'm trying to get it right you while you were off damning my existence and you are still looking for ammunition. I just added a citation yesterday, and amended what I could find that varied with a link to that. The other user is not supplying a reference and removing the link I provided to the new treatment. Are you actually interested in improving the page, or what? Get a citation and fix it. cygnis insignis 18:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
My attempt to provide a source for the removal of Cistugo was met with pettiness [3]. I suspect you intend to hold the article to ransom until I personally place a note in the article itself for why this specific genus is NOT on the list? Very well. I hope this settles this particular charade. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Cygnis insignis, I'm confused....i'm removing the Cistugo link from you because the Cistugo genus page provides all the references you need to keep my and Elmidae's rewrite of the family....can you give me a good reason why you keep reverting?...i'm still trying to be nice to you, and haven't started using Elmidae's tone...…Pvmoutside (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
...sigh... welcome to the arena. I was trying to appease cygnis here; that revert isn't helping (although I agree that the refs are not needed in the article). One request: can we move further activities to the article talk page please? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Cygnis insignisEdit

Elmidae, do you know much about Cygnis insignis, and why he seems so belligerent?.. Pvmoutside (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's not, please. I am not trying to keep a feud going here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

North America ScelidosauridsEdit

The reason why I said possibly north america is because on the Kayenta formation page, there is a mention of a Scelidosaurus sp. known from there. It comes with a reference but I do not know how to get the reference. Perhaps you can do that (it's reference 7,incase you wondering). Sorry if I confused you at all. OviraptorFan (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems like a solidly confirmed finding - hence I have moved the "possibly" to Portugal only and ported that ref for North America. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union RevisionEdit

I must point out one thing: Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union and Council of People's Commissars are different things. There was one all-union CPS, and there was CPS for every Soviet Republic. Council of People's Commissars is about political institute in the Soviet Union. Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union is an executive All-Union branch of government. These artiles are about two different things. It is clearly defined in Council of People's Commissars#Soviet republics section. MarcusTraianus (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

MarcusTraianus: You are right, of course - I came to the redirect from the other end (where the target was removed), and it looked like a misfired move-by-c&p attempt. Sorry about this; I see you restored already. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Elmidae: No problem. Thank you for understanding.

NPR Newsletter No.17Edit

Hello Elmidae,

Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Chiara IezziEdit

I took your suggestion and I re-worked Chiara Iezzi bio. Would you kindly have a look? It's here. Thank you,

Bel gattone (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bel gattone, the sourcing looks much better now. It is likely that other editors will still work it over a little, but I believe the article has a sufficient amount of reliable secondary sources now to survive a deletion discussion (which is basically the criterion I was looking at). So if you want to insert it at Paola Iezzi again, I would be fine with that. Consider adding some categories once the article is live. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! --Bel gattone (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Asiatic cheetahEdit

Hi : am glad you noticed. This guy has been adding the unsourced stuff several times already, and always the same. Can you get him blocked, or at least the page protected???? Cherio -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Neither, I'm afraid :/ I don't think the disruption has reached a level yet where either of these would be considered necessary by an admin - just based on my experience. And naturally I'm not in a position to implement them myself. Might have to wait a bit and see if they step it up to a level where it becomes really disruptive. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

#Equality #WeAreHumanEdit

Oh, okay. So i'll redirect Anti-Islam to Criticism of Islam 'coz all of these links are linked to Criticism of Islam. Now, it's FAIR! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

"Fairness" doesnt come into it. You do that again, I'll be reporting you for intentional disruption (see WP:POINTY). If you want something changed and there is opposition, start a discussion at the affected page's talk page, don't flail around and throw hashtags. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmm... this is a new form of Islamophobic attack. I see... - (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Darn, you found me out. Excuse me while I go burn a few mosques. In the meantime, you seriously might consider just starting a discussion at Talk:Anti-Christian and see what people think about splitting this up into a disambiguation. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Ikr. This is a new era of Wikipedia, where the Islamophobian and Encyclopedian are allied and disfiguring other(s) ethnic or religion by make disambiguations and linked all of bad article of other(s) like Islam, but redirect the "anti-Christian" to..... "Criticism"?????? May God forgive your soul. - (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I think this concludes this little colloquy (I have no truck with your or any other deity BTW). Further comments along these lines will be deleted. If you want to approach the issue constructively, I have pointed you to the location. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

RE: Richard WoolcockEdit

Elmidae, I consider the information provided authoritative enough, moreover, I've added a new link which substantiates my edit, from Richard's website itself.

I wish you would have consulted the page's talk page before making such a major revision.

-User0414 — Preceding unsigned comment added by User0414 (talkcontribs) 18:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

User0414: ... and I wish you had taken the time to review the actual guidelines for determining notability of living persons, as laid out at WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. In a nutshell: notability is based on what independent, reliable, third-party sources have written about the person. This specifically excludes self-published material, which can only be used to reference some uncontroversial facts, but not to establish whether the person is notable enough to have an article about them on Wikipedia. Can you produce in-depth material about Richard Woolcock (him, not his companies or products) that have not been written by himself or someone directly connected to him? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Elmidae: I don't, though thankyou for filling me in on the guidelines. :)

Silver perchEdit


I'm extremely unhappy that you have unilaterally deleted very useful additions to the silver perch (Bidyanus bidyanus) page and I'd appreciate it if you would undo your deletes. There is no justification for them. Wiki is a vehicle for useful details, there is no requirement for excessive brevity. I note you gave the Eastern cod (Maccullochella ikei) page similar treatment, and it is the poorer for it now too. Codman (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Codman - the justifications are quite clear and well backed up by policy: a) don't use excessive citations when a short excerpt will do; b) don't add unsourced material. Following these guidelines was all I did at Bidyanus bidyanus. I am thus not inclined to revert these edits. If you can provide sources for the alternate common names and the reasoning about population stabilization, do feel free to re-add them; but there must be references. (In fact there are still some missing from the article even so.) - As for eastern freshwater cod, you seemed happy enough with my edits back then, and the cutting-down of that massive citation block was equally necessary in that instance. I can assure you that it wouldn't have stuck around even if I hadn't been the one to remove it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

May you check this or me pleaseEdit here you go--Bubblesorg (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Cheers - spruced it up a little. Remember to add the actual {{reflist}} template to the page, not just the section header. This species not described by Rafinesque, BTW (check PaleoDB record). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello ElmidaeEdit

Thanks for your observation, please note i wasn't directly referring to you concerning the edits you made to the article 'Snakes of Nigeria' i noticed some earlier edits that removed the most relevant. Thanks for the advice anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olusegun Optimus (talkcontribs) 10:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Tone it down, pleaseEdit

Elmidae, I know @Codman: IRL and although he has been an editor of Wikipedia for quite a long time, I think it is fair to say that he is not really an experienced Wikipeian and is having some trouble learning how to word things in the appropriate way using Wikipedia's voice. Your approach to this has been unnecessarily abrupt and agressive and does nothing to help another editor learn how to edit here. Codman is very knowledgeable about certain areas regarding Australian native freshwater fish and ecosystems and has the potential to make some very valuable contributions here, he just neds to learn how to edit here. I have advised him of the desirability to edit while logged on, as a start. It is easy for those of us who are experienced here to resort to shorthand in our edit summaries and talk page comments, but we should always remember that it is better to nurture inexperienced editors and "hold their hands" than to simply dismiss their contributions out of hand. Please consider. - Nick Thorne talk 01:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nick Thorne - (note I don't know what is going on at Bidyanus bidyanus right now, having unwatched it due to the appearance of a personal gadfly of mine, who frankly makes it difficult for me to remain accommodating in the face of constant feuding.) - I am aware that Codman has been contributing here for a long time, and as far as I can tell, in a uniformly productive manner. I am also aware that we do need and want the subject experts to give their time to Wikipedia, and that many of us are not full-time WP style & technique buffs, which is where cooperation is required. I have previously had friendly and collegial interactions with him [4]; this is why I was taken aback about how they reacted to what seems to me rather uncontroversial rephrasing, and got a little short. While I don't think you can accuse me of not trying to explain the reasoning, maybe you wish to engage in some explanation regarding neutral language and quotations, so that he doesn't get the impression that he is being censored by malevolent people who don't want his material in the encyclopedia. There's not many editors who would take the time to dig through ancient newspaper archives for species accounts, and the last thing I want to do is turning such contributors away from the project. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


N. rafinesque does not exist, no reference for it, not even the PBDB, the website says N.sp for the Florida specimen. rafinesque is the person who named the Genus. --Bubblesorg (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That appears to be the case. Thanks. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


Thanks, yes, your link is helpful. The worst thing is that somebody went into a rampage a couple of years ago and created more than 5,000 redirects to the original page or, worse yet, to the wrong page. See: Porphyra or Erythrotrichia. I notified this to other groups but I don't see much action so far. It seems that Tree of Life is trying a little harder. Frankly, how to deal with this problem? --Polinizador (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Polinizador: I'm pretty sure the proposed bot run is going to happen (QBugbot having performed very nicely before); that may sort it all out. Hopefully. Would be pain to do manually... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


This sort of uncivil and inappropriate commentary is not helpful. Indeed, we make pseudosciences quite explicit, and few people know what cryptozoology is, making the description not only necessary but also helpful. Please self-revert. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

In a word: nope. Your approach for some time has been to to flavour such links with the equivalent of "[...] a proponent of communism, a dictatorial regime opposed to personal freedom". - Exaggerating here; the point is, you are extremely keen to leave no doubt for the reader that cryptozoology is bad bad bad and stay far away kids. Regardless of whether one agrees with you, that is not your, or our, job. If a reader does not know what the term means, well that is what the wikilink is for; all the apposite information is available at one click, in a form that the community has agreed covers it equitably. There is no need or call in that link for editorial emphasis on the facets that you think need to be hammered home first and foremost. - I'll be happy to discuss this on the article's talk page, and indeed would be interested to see what others think of this instance. But I won't just self-revert. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Please review WP:FRINGE. The false equivalency you present and personal opinions about the pseudoscience aside, I am again asking you to self-revert, and again asking you to observe WP:CIVIL. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
See above please. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The accusation of incivility being made here by Bloodofox is quite unjustified. See my views here. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you helpEdit, not much has come out of this creature as yet. its the same thing as zunityrannus i think.--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bubblesorg:: I have just moved this into draft space. I think it is likely premature. There's only a single mention I can find online, and THAT has gone dead (your link no longer works). I think we will need at least the basic taxonomic description, published in a journal, before an article is possible. Best to let it sit in draft until then. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks man--Bubblesorg (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Valea Făgetului River (Misir)Edit

Hey there. I see you marked this as reviewed. Normally NGEO articles are easy to do but in this case I was not able to find it on a map and then struggled to find it anywhere that wasn't traceable back to us. I even went up a level and had trouble finding the Misir that wasn't referring to the Nile, as that's the word for the Nile in Turkish. Can I ask what you found to verify? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:: Yeah, I flailed around with that one a little as well. It is on the maps [5] but to my understanding the "valea" part means, literally, valley. It seems reasonable that this watercourse would be named after the valley, but admittedly there was no clear statement to this effect. The offline sources can't be checked, natch. Should have slapped a {{disputed}} tag on it, I guess... feel free bounce to draft on the (absence of) strength of that :p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Elmidae, Thanks. I found the city too but the two closest rivers were named Raul Aries and Mures who share a Romanian Wikipedia article [6]. Following up the chain of articles starting with the article proper leads me to the Crișul Repede which looks to be in a whole different part of the country [7]. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: Can't find any such thing as an online hydrological map of Romania, or any map that labels below what we call HUC8 over here (i.e., sub-basin features) - which is about what Google Earth does. So - no information. I don't think I've come upon unproven geographical features before. AfD? (might bring in some expert eyes) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I'm thinking AfD might the right course depending on what the other person said. NGEO is normally such an easy thing to verify and this is the first time I can recall, with the level of effort I've put in not finding evidence (even with something using non-roman characters). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
And now it's at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valea Făgetului River (Misir). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Add: actually, thinking back, I believe I may have been reacting to some extent to the reasoning of this previous revert, which went for "not notable" - not a thing you can say about geographic features. "Not demonstrably extant" might have been more to the point! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Elmidae I've reached out to the editor who created the redirect to see what he knows. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: cross-posting - All right, cheers! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

is this ok?Edit

Suskityrannus skull diagram

--Bubblesorg (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bubblesorg: Can't say - ask the peeps at the paleoart review, please. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curatedEdit

Thanks for reviewing Valea Făgetului River (Misir), Elmidae.

Barkeep49 has gone over this page again and marked it as unpatrolled. Their note is:

I don't want it falling out of the queue for now even though it's already indexed by Google.

Please contact Barkeep49 for any further query. Thanks.

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

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

UNESCO shenanigansEdit

Next time, just give us a shout at WP:RfPP — we can be real time-savers! El_C 07:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I was working up to it :p - not the best modus operandi, but I was hoping they'd eventually look at their talk page... thanks for protecting! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life NewsletterEdit

April 2019—Issue 001

Tree of Life

Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

  Sturgeon nominated by Atsme, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
  Eastern brown snake nominated by Casliber, reviewed by Opabinia regalis
  Cactus wren nominated by CaptainEek, reviewed by Sainsf
  Bidni nominated by PolluxWorld, reviewed by DepressedPer
  Crinoid nominated by Cwmhiraeth, reviewed by Chiswick Chap

Newly nominated FAs

 Cretoxyrhina nominated by Macrophyseter
 Eastern brown snake nominated by Casliber

WikiCup heating up

Tree of Life editors are making a respectable showing in this year's WikiCup, with three regular editors advancing to the third round. Overall winner from 2016, Casliber, topped the scoreboard in points for round 2, getting a nice bonus for bringing Black mamba to FA. Enwebb continues to favor things remotely related to bats, bringing Stellaluna to GA. Plants editor Guettarda also advanced to round 3 with several plant-related DYKs.

Wikipedia page views track animal migrations, flowers blooming

A March 2019 paper in PLOS Biology found that Wikipedia page views vary seasonally for species. With a dataset of 31,751 articles about species, the authors found that roughly a quarter of all articles had significant seasonal variations in page views on at least one language version of Wikipedia. They examined 245 language versions. Page views also peaked with cultural events, such as views of the Great white shark article during Shark Week or Turkey during Thanksgiving.

Seasonal variation in page views among nine bird species
Did you know ... that Tree of Life editors bring content to the front page nearly every day?

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Red-breasted ploverEdit

I hate to be this person, but both the IOC and the Clements Checklist list the northern and southern red-breasted plovers as subspecies. I merely was adding them as separate articles to add some information about the status of the red-breasted plover, which is currently listed as not recognized. Many thanks.

@AidenD: You are right re subspecies/species status - got that down the wrong throat apparently; sorry. The fact remains that there seems to be very little material for separate articles, and that both subspecies should be dealt with in the same location. Please stick to New Zealand plover for any additions, unless you unearth a large amount of material. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Procoelous VertebraeEdit

Hello, Elmidae. Thank you for your input and for moving this content to a more suitable location. I think it works well where you put it, and I'm happy to see it with similar content. Best, Lunord22 (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Lunord22

@Lunord22: Glad you agree :) Thank you for adding the original images! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Automatic Taxobox OrtholasmatinaeEdit

I undid your automatic taxobox edit to Ortholasmatinae because it was missing some information that I included in the original taxobox.

If you want to change the original taxobox to an automatic one, I'm fine with that (although I don't know why it really needs to be changed), but it should include all the appropriate ranks- Suborder Dyspnoi and Family Nemastomatidae were left out on your version. Harvestman-man (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Harvestman-man: the reasoning is that later changes to the taxonomy can be done centrally and propagate to all articles, and that it provides some safety against editor error when parameterizing the box. The display of additional parent taxa is possible by inserting a "display_parents" parameter. Should be 3 in this case, I guess. I'll try it out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Harvestman-man: Hmm - can't get the family to appear, it jumps straight from sub- to super-. Odd. Pinging @Peter coxhead:, who knows hwo to wrangle these things - any idea how to get the current outpout for Ortholasmatinae on automatic? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Never mind, figured it out - wrong parent in template. Sorry peter! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I need helpEdit can you help me with trash pile I made, i copied some o what the article said and just changed up a few words in each line so its not plagiarism.--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, bit late here - but I would have told you to not go there :) I remember the last time this came round at AfD, and I argued for deletion based on single-reporting status and lack of good sourcing. Don't think anything has changed since then. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

A cookie for you!Edit

  thanks for reviewing the snake! Wesborden (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


Cetorhinus is the genus,Megachasma is the megamouth did you even check? This is the picture plant drew used for the wiki Plant drew just made a mistake Please No, I look up to you so don't troll me :( please you're the biologist not me, you have been here for so long so please no. Dont make me sad--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC) Oh yeah and i forgot, sorry for overacting, cheers.--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Dude. This is a proposed alternative classification. Naturally it is different than the currently accepted one. This alternative happens to be basking shark, as the taxa have similar tooth morphology. What is so confusing about this? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
To clarify this a little more, the proposition here is that the genus Megachasma may have to be placed not in its own separate family, but within the existing family that, at this point, contains only one genus and one species, that being the basking shark. That does not necessarily make the Megamouth a "basking shark", since the familiy would at that point no longer be the "basking shark family" but the "weird large filter-feeding sharks" family - if that's any solace. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

so since its controversial and none of the sources say anything about basking sharks, then lets not create a page.--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

No. It is not controversial to the extent that we can't have a page using the generally accepted classification; nor is it so confusing that the page has to be removed entirely - sorry, that's just you. The source for that statement is given by the second reference to that paragraph [8] - search for the section "Origin of Filter-Feeding". I have reinstated the article. Now please stop this - you misunderstood the sentence, clarification has been provided, you have no reason to wipe articles now out of some kind of petulance. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18Edit

Hello Elmidae,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curatedEdit

Hi, I'm Winged Blades of Godric. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Rashmi Ranjan Parida, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

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

WBGconverse 17:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Naum KoenEdit

Hi Elmidae, thanks for reviewing the page i accepted. I am trying to go through few articles from the AFC submissions every day(there is a HUGE backlog). I have had my logic for approving questioned once, but never in a form of launching an AFD right of the bat. So it took me a bit by a surprise. My understanding is that according to WP:BEFORE in questioning notability its preferable to add a {{notability}} tag specially in a case of an article that was recently created. Shemtovca (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Shemtovca - in practice, no. If a New Page Patroller happens upon something that they think AfD-worthy, they are encouraged to send it there. This is based on the understanding that putting a notability tag on an article really only amounts to passing the buck to someone else, or in the worst case, having the article linger in mainspace at questionable quality but without improvement. This particularly applies to articles at the end of the queue (i.e. old ones), because they are in danger of slipping into auto-indexing 90 days after creation, and should be dealt with decisively before that happens. That's our huge backlog :p Since Naum Koen started life in February, it is really close to that cut-off. - Personally I will only leave-but-tag in cases where I really can't tell but still have substantial misgivings. So this is in no way a slight on your specific judgement. At least AfDs tend to attract a number of people who will take the time to really assess the situation, and the result is something you can take to the bank! Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
So how do you understand WP:BEFORE points C2 & C3? Doesn't it contradict this New Page Patroller practice? Shemtovca (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
C2 (recently created): In my experience reviewers take care to observe that in actual new articles, since people often move stuff to mainspace while they are still filling out some serious holes; every so often someone pounces on this kind of stub regardless and gets trouted (correctly so, I'd say). But when something comes through AfC I would expect it to be past that stage.
C3 (tag first): assuming it's not a brand-new article, I think this functionally does not work for notability issues, as noted. See, the boil-it-down-to-essentials definition of an NPP pass is "does this look like it would survive an AfD?" If yes, keep in mainspace and tag for improvements; if no, send to AfD (or back to draft, depending on circumstances). Since notability is one of these real world parameters that no amount of editing can improve if it is actually absent, that is a sensible binary to my mind.
Having said that, it does depend on personal assessment, and sometimes one makes a faceplant. I admit it happens to me most frequently with non-English-sourced businesspeople, because of translation issues and difficulties in sorting the promotional chaff from the useful sources. If people agree that this was an unjustified nomination and we gain an article, then all the better :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your responses. As someone who speaks Russian & Ukrainian i can say that i did hear of this business person so in my opinion he is notable, but i guess that's a form of WP:OR ;-) Shemtovca (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

No just noEdit, he is not the same person. --Bubblesorg (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Walrus vandalismEdit

Hey, thanks for your vigilance on the walrus article! The same clown invented an entire species of walrus for his hoax, which I've CSDd now. When dealing with vandalism I always recommend checking contribution histories for related vandalism that needs to be nuked at the same time. Blythwood (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

That's some dedication... including making up references without slipping into obvious taking-the-piss phrasing. Glad to see nobody went and marked that as reviewed, at least :p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

here i need help with thisEdit can you check the page.--Bubblesorg (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC) I need help on it--Bubblesorg (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bubblesorg: Do you mean your entries under "Popular culture"? Looks reasonable to me - I've polished it up a bit. Not sure whether the cryptozoology entry belongs there, but with cryptozoology someone will be unhappy wherever and however you insert it, so might as well give it a try. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay thanks--Bubblesorg (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Nah, i mean its worked for megalodon. It should for this as well, in that page they were violent they said fiction, besides i think a cryptozoology guy would rather put a scientific taxobox for champ then edit this--Bubblesorg (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The common name should have an apostrophe -- as in the original description of Devil's Hole pupfish (Wales 1930). The place name Devils Hole should not have an apostrophe (per NPS regulations).Edit

Thanks for your edits! Sorry I'm new to wikipedia editing.

Do you have a source that the original description doesn't have authority over common name? Who decides the common name? Sorry this is a long pedantic battle I've been having over this apostrophe!

@2606:a000:4045:aa00:61a7:d09f:7488:b55e and I'm not actually aware of any rules regarding common names that are universally accepted in the scientific community. Our article Common name does a good job of laying out the various approaches taken; some fields encourage coining them, others explicitly discourage it. I couldn't say what is the case with fish. My interpretation with the pupfish goes back to what is the general approach used by Wikipedia: use the common name that is in most widespread use. If you look over the various sources referenced in the article you will see that variants both with and without the apostrophe are used. E.g., the IUCN uses the apostrophe, while Fishbase does not - both are what we would normally consider authoritative sources, which doesn't help if they contradict each other :p
The main reason for reverting your changes was that we want to avoid differences in spelling between the article title and the two most prominent mentions in the article itself (the lede and the taxonomic information box). You changed the latter two but not the first, which would involve moving the article to another name. Under these circumstances, the matter would probably have to be discussed on the article's talk page, if you consider it important enough. Feel free to start a discussion there! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
(You might consider making an account for easier communication - your IP address has already changed between your edits on the article and your message here.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! In that case, can we revert to the apostrophe? The only reason for lack of one is USFWS's rule for certain geographic locations (which doesn't include fish names!).

@2606:a000:4045:aa00:d573:a5d4:4af4:cae6: Well, as I said, "common usage" would allow either... so there aren't good grounds for me to just go ahead and change the article title from what it is right now. I can put it up for discussion on the talk page and we can see what people say? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Mahmoud GhandiEdit

Return to the user page of "Elmidae".