Open main menu

Contents

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

https://sta.sh/0159rg0yo2yn, https://sta.sh/01u9cok1v0v1 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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus 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 152.23.46.213: 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

British Crusade?Edit

Hello Elmidae. "British crusade"? Why do you think I have a British crusade? Do you know where I'm from? Are there only two countries that speak English? Are the U.S. and the U.K. the only countries with an official standardised English?

Australians use neither U.S. nor U.K. English, rather they use Australian English. Some examples of Australian English spelling include: the 's' in the 'ise' suffix e.g. terrorise, organisation, colonising, analysed; the 'ou' in words like colour, labour, and favour; the 'll' e.g. travelling; the 'c' in words like defence, and offences; 'r before e' in words like centre, theatre and millimetres; the 'e' in grey; and spelt as well as spelled.

The Diamond dove Article was using Australian English mixed with some American English before I edited it, the Australian variants outnumbered the American, it used 'colour' three times and 'color' once, 'grey' six times and 'gray' not once, 'centre' once and 'center' not once, it used the metric system (as does Australia) in the word centimetre, but spelt it the American way rather than the Australian and International Bureau of Weights and Measures way. If you go back into the article's history you will see that it originally used 'colour' and 'centimetre'. So I cleaned up the odd ones out and it was all consistent. Can you really call that 'disruptive editing'? But then you came and changed it, so as it stands now, it uses two different spelling systems in the same article. It has 'colour' and 'color' right next to each other. It's hard not to see that as disruptive editing.

The Zebra Finch article was using 'colour' and 'grey' which is in line with the spelling of the counties of the native range of the species (Australia and Indonesia) but then randomly used the U.S. 'ize' suffix. I didn't change it to 'British English' I standardised it by cleaning up the parts that weren't in line with the rest of the article, rather than having native (Australian and Indonesian) and foreign (U.S.A) spelling mixed together. Plus the article says to use British English.

The Lion article was using 'colour' not 'color', 'grey' not 'gray', 'centre' not 'center', 'kilometres' not 'kilometers' (or miles) 'defence' not 'defense' all of which is customary English spelling in India, Ethiopia, Somalia, Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, Eswatini, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, Sudan, and South Sudan which all are home to native Lions. Now, I changed three words using the American 'ize' suffix to the 'ise' suffix that would then match the English already used on the article. The Lion article already used the various forms of the 'ise', 'isa', 'isi', 'yse' suffix 45 times. It was 45 times an s, and thrice a z, so I made it consistent. But you put it back and threatened to report me. I find this very disruptive behavior and will let you off on a warning this time. It seems you are not even reading my edits or you would know that I am not making "far-ranging spelling changes" as I am being falsely accused of. I am literally bringing "individual outliers in an article in line with the spelling adopted throughout the rest of the text". And please stop this American crusade. BernardFox1595 (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

No, the point is that users making things like this their causes célèbre is disruptive, which three users have advised you about. So don't do that? cygnis insignis 07:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@BernardFox1595: As long as you persist in the fiction that species articles have to follow the spelling that happens to be used in part or all of the species' range, you will continue to be asked to desist in most of what you do. Direct suggested connection of spelling to subject is reserved for "strong national ties to a topic" - that is emphatically not the case for most species ("national animals" like the bald eagle excepted). Each of your comments along the lines of "not an American animal" demonstrates that you haven't yet understood that. MOS:RETAIN is the fundamental guideline here - stick with the version origianlly used in the article. - If I reverted cases where you actually edited with that in mind, I apologize; but overall I'm getting an impression of disruptive busywork carried out under mistaken premises. If you can refrain from trying to impose your interpretation of national identity on topics that don't mandate it, then there shouldn't be much of a problem in the future. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Precious
 
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

John Sykes (British businessman)Edit

Hi Elmidae! Would you please advise under which guidelines the article John Sykes (British businessman) serves as an advertisement and which part of the article identifies as an advert for it to be marked as so. This is not a COI. WPContributor123 (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC) WPContributor123

Personally I think the article is within the acceptable bounds for BLP items, even although is has clearly been added because someone close to the subject wanted them on WP, rather than because they have received so much coverage that uninvolved people have taken notice. I probably would not have added the tag myself. However, as an editor who has been prominently responsible for content at John Sykes Foundation, which was indeed considered somewhat promotional, you should not remove this tag here. The idea is for the assessment to be carried out by editors who have no prior involvement with the subject at all. Bluntly, for someone who has previously written promotionally on the topic to remove the tag with "confirmed as not an advert" is inappropriate. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your response on this, Elmidae. Would you please point out the section of the article of which the editor decided it was grounds for an advert. I know for a fact that the WP user who wrote the article does not have a COI, and I only watch it for unwanted spam. WPContributor123 (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)User:WPContributor123
Pinging @Mean as custard: - maybe they can comment on what specific part of the article seems to be of concern? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
"advanced over recent years to build a large international real estate portfolio" - "exclusive private retreat" - "centered on helping to transform lives" - "delivered back to the community where he was born and raised". . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
@Mean as custard: - Thanks for advising of this. Would you please be able to suggest if possible how to reword this so that it does not come across as an advertisement? Perhaps we could change the subjectivity of the wording? WPContributor123 (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)WPContributor123
Okay, I've removed/rephrased what might be construed as advertorial and/or corporate language, and I think the rest can pass muster as reasonably neutral. Removed the tag. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for this Elmidae, much appreciated. WPContributor123 (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)WPContributor123

Some baklava for you!Edit

  Thank you very much for your patience. AidenD (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you help?Edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Post_KPG_Coelacanth_fossils&action=history --Bubblesorg (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

My primary comment would be that this really does not require a separate article (especially not one with a title that will never ever be a search term). There's no reason why this should not be treated at Coelacanth, as indeed it already is. Suggest you insert additional material there; this almost certainly will be merged in otherwise. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

i truely doubt that it will never be searched, i mean a lot people will search this up, skeptics an creationists as well as crypto folks.but okay i will--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

is this art okay?Edit

 
Suskityrannus paleoart

is this okay? --Bubblesorg (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Well... I'm not a fan of this type of illustration, so you probably won't get a lot of positive reinforcement from me here :/ I really think you need to clear this type of thing with the guys at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review, who know what anatomical points to check for. FWIW, I don't quite understand why there's so much empty space in the image, and I think the teeth are rather fuzzy and of unlikely shape? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

May 2019 Tree of Life NewsletterEdit

May 2019—Issue 002


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

  Cretoxyrhina by Macrophyseter
  Bramble Cay melomys by The lorax/Vanamonde93, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
  Chimpanzee by LittleJerry/Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Tim riley
  Spinophorosaurus by FunkMonk/Jens Lallensack, reviewed by Enwebb
  Trachodon mummy by Jens Lallensack, reviewed by Gog the Mild
  Megabat by Enwebb, reviewed by Jens Lallensack

Newly nominated FAs

  Spinophorosaurus by FunkMonk/Jens Lallensack
  Trachodon mummy by Jens Lallensack




Fundamental changes being discussed at WikiProject Biology

On 23 May, user Prometheus720 created a talk page post, "Revamp of Wikiproject Biology--Who is In?". In the days since, WP:BIOL has been bustling with activity, with over a dozen editors weighing in on this discussion, as well as several others that have subsequently spawned. An undercurrent of thought is that WP:BIOL has too many subprojects, preventing editors from easily interacting and stopping a "critical mass" of collaboration and engagement. Many mergers and consolidations of subprojects have been tentatively listed, with a consolidation of WikiProjects Genetics + Molecular and Cell Biology + Computational Biology + Biophysics currently in discussion. Other ideas being aired include updating old participants lists, redesigning project pages to make them more user-friendly, and clearly identifying long- and short-term goals.

Editor Spotlight: These editors want you to write about dinosaurs

Editors FunkMonk and Jens Lallensack had a very fruitful month, collaborating to bring two dinosaur articles to GA and then nominating them both for FA. They graciously decided to answer some questions for the first ToL Editor Spotlight, giving insight to their successful collaborations, explaining why you should collaborate with them, and also sharing some tidbits about their lives off-Wikipedia.

1) Enwebb: How long have you two been collaborating on articles?

  • Jens Lallensack: I started in the German Wikipedia in 2005 but switched to the English Wikipedia because of its very active dinosaur project. My first major collaboration with FunkMonk was on Heterodontosaurus in 2015.
  • FunkMonk: Yeah, we had interacted already on talk pages and through reviewing each other's articles, and at some point I was thinking of expanding Heterodontosaurus, and realised Jens had already written the German Wikipedia version, so it seemed natural to work together on the English one. Our latest collaboration was Spinophorosaurus, where by another coincidence, I had wanted to work on that article for the WP:Four Award, and it turned out that Jens had a German book about the expedition that found the dinosaur, which I wouldn't have been able to utilise with my meagre German skills. Between those, we also worked on Brachiosaurus, a wider Dinosaur Project collaboration between several editors.

2) Enwebb: Why dinosaurs?

  • JL: Because of the huge public interest in them. But dinosaurs are also highly interesting from a scientific point of view: key evolutionary innovations emerged within this group, such as warm-bloodedness, gigantism, and flight. Dinosaur research is, together with the study of fossil human remains, the most active field in paleontology. New scientific techniques and approaches tend to get developed within this field. Dinosaur research became increasingly interdisciplinary, and now does not only rely on various fields of biology and geology, but also on chemistry and physics, among others. Dinosaurs are therefore ideal to convey scientific methodology to the general public.
  • FM: As outlined above, dinosaurs have been described as a "gateway to science"; if you learn about dinosaurs, you will most likely also learn about a lot of scientific fields you would not necessarily be exposed to otherwise. On a more personal level, having grown up with and being influenced by various dinosaur media, it feels pretty cool to help spread knowledge about these animals, closest we can get to keeping them alive.

3) Enwebb: Why should other editors join you in writing articles related to paleontology? Are you looking to attract new editors, or draw in experienced editors from other areas of Wikipedia?

  • JL: Because we are a small but active and helpful community. Our Dinosaur collaboration, one of the very few active open collaborations in Wikipedia, makes high-level writing on important articles easier and more fun. Our collaboration is especially open to editors without prior experience in high-level writing. But we do not only write articles: several WikiProject Dinosaur participants are artists who do a great job illustrating the articles, and maintain an extensive and very active image review system. In fact, a number of later authors started with contributing images.
  • FM: Anyone who is interested in palaeontology is welcome to try writing articles, and we would be more than willing to help. I find that the more people that work on articles simultaneously with me, the more motivation I get to write myself. I am also one of those editors who started out contributing dinosaur illustrations and making minor edits, and only began writing after some years. But when I got to it, it wasn't as intimidating as I had feared, and I've learned a lot in the process. For example anatomy; if you know dinosaur anatomy, you have a very good framework for understanding the anatomy of other tetrapod animals, including humans.

4) Enwebb: Between the two of you, you have over 300 GA reviews. FunkMonk, you have over 250 of those. What keeps you coming back to review more articles?

  • FM: One of the main reasons I review GANs is to learn more about subjects that seem interesting (or which I would perhaps not come across otherwise). There are of course also more practical reasons, such as helping an article on its way towards FAC, to reduce the GAN backlog, and to "pay back" when I have a nomination up myself. It feels like a win-win situation where I can be entertained by interesting info, while also helping other editors get their nominations in shape, and we'll end up with an article that hopefully serves to educate a lot of people (the greater good).
  • JL: Because I enjoy reading Wikipedia articles and like to learn new things. In addition, reviews give me the opportunity to have direct contact with the authors, and help them to make their articles even better. This is quite rewarding for me personally. But I also review because I consider our GA and FA system to be of fundamental importance for Wikipedia. When I started editing Wikipedia (the German version), the article promotion reviews motivated me and improved my writing skills a lot. Submitting an article for review requires one to get serious and take additional steps to bring the article to the best quality possible. GAs and FAs are also a good starting point for readers, and may motivate them to become authors themselves.

5) Enwebb: What are your editing preferences? Any scripts or gadgets you find invaluable?

  • FM: One script that everyone should know about is the duplink highlight tool. It will show duplinks within the intro and body of a given article separately, and it seems a lot of people still don't know about it, though they are happy when introduced to it. I really liked the citationbot too (since citation consistency is a boring chore to me), but it seems to be blocked at the moment due to some technical issues.
  • JL: I often review using the Wikipedia Beta app on my smartphone, as it allows me to read without needing to sit in front of the PC. For writing, I find the reference management software Zotero invaluable, as it generates citation templates automatically, saving a lot of time.
    • Editor's note: I downloaded Zotero and tried it for the first time and think it is a very useful tool. More here.

6) Enwebb: What would surprise the ToL community to learn about your life off-wiki?

  • FM: Perhaps that I have no background in natural history/science, but work with animation and games. But fascination with and knowledge of nature and animals is actually very helpful when designing and animating characters and creatures, so it isn't that far off, and I can actually use some of the things I learn while writing here for my work (when I wrote the Dromaeosauroides article, it was partially to learn more about the animal for a design-school project).
  • JL: That I am actually doing research on dinosaurs. Though I avoid writing about topics I publish research on, my Wikipedia work helps me to keep a good general overview over the field, and quite regularly I can use what I learned while writing for Wikipedia for my research.

Get in touch with these editors regarding collaboration at WikiProject Dinosaurs!

Marine life continues to dominate ToL DYKs

  Discuss this issue

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.

Sent by DannyS712 (talk) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 03:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Assistance in creation of Sykes Capital Wikipedia articleEdit

Hello Elmidae! I'm leaving a message on your talk page due to your recent involvement in John Sykes (British entrepreneur) and John Sykes Foundation. There was recently a deletion of the page Atlantis Group, done by user GSS. This was done due to changes in Sykes's company name from Atlantis Group to Sykes Capital. However, following the deletion of the Atlantis Group article, I think it seems sensible writing a Sykes Capital article from scratch. But, due to recent issues, I request that you help and advise myself in my article writing as I don't want my work being taken down. I'll follow Wikipedia guidelines and reference all evidence. I just ask that yourself be able to advise / check before the article goes live to fellow Wikipedians. Would this please be something you can get involved in? If not, would you please point myself in the right direction. Kind Regards. Screading (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Screading, as you can see from the reasoning at the deletion discussion, the article was deleted not because of any name change, but because there appeared not to be the required amount and quality of sources to justify an article on Wikipedia. Especially with companies, groups and corporations (basically any entity with a desire to generate web presence for promotional purposes), it is crucial that the sourcing in the article consist almost entirely of independent, in-depth coverage by unconnected sources. I.e., it has to be demonstrated that the subject has been noticed and discussed by sources that are not promotional outlets or just re-publishing slightly polished press releases. This is to ensure that Wikipedia does not devolve into a advertising directory. It appears that at the time of deletion, this was not the case for Atlantis Group.
If you believe that sourcing of the needed type is available however, then by all means give it a go. The applicable guidelines are at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Note that incontroversial information like fiscal figures, names of personnel etc. can be referenced to primary (in-house) sources, but most everything else cannot. I would suggest that you start such an article as a draft at Draft:Sykes Capital and then submit it for review (there will be a button on the page to do that). This way there will be some vetting of the sources before it appears in mainspace, which will hopefully allow addressing of any problems before it comes to deletion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Elmidae, Following this, I feel that Sykes Capital currently does not warrant its own article. The coverage in John Sykes (British entrepreneur) is enough. However, fellow user GSS has put this article up for deletion. Due to the article being 9 years old with input from a variety of Wikipedians including yourself (when you removed the promotional language), I disagree with this notice. I would like to know your thoughts if possible and whether you think the notice should be removed. Thank you again! Screading (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Stepping on toesEdit

Looks like we were both reviewing Suhaiymah Manzoor Khan at the same time. I just wanted to leave a note clarifying that I agree with your decision to approve the article, but added tags (which were added during what would have been an edit conflict) because I was concerned that the article is overly reliant on citations to Manzoor-Khan's work and reads like a list of accomplishments rather than an encyclopedia entry. signed, Rosguill talk 21:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Righto, thanks! While you are here, want to have a quick look at Laura Cooper Olivieri and see if you agree with the AfD nomination I just fired off? I'm a bit shy of the academic notabilities lately. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Oswald BoelckeEdit

Your reasoning for undoing my deletion that Oswald Boelcke was one of the few German heroes not associated with Nazism is an example of faulty logic. Most of the WWI brass who fought on the German side during WWII didn't do it because they believed in Nazism; they did so because the were military people. (Of course, Göring was an exception - he was a Nazi through and through!) And besides it doesn't matter how many WWI brass segued into Nazism, it doesn't mean that he, and the other deceased WWI heroes would have done likewise. I suggest you read the TALK page concerning edits to Oswald Boelcke's Wikipedia article. Rtmorphine (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

John Sykes (British entrepreneur)Edit

Hi Elmidae, another user has put the article John Sykes (British entrepreneur) up for deletion. This is one that you helped edit to remove the promotional language in the content. The content hasn’t changed since this language was reworded to make it a NPOV, but now there is the AfD nomination. Should the nomination be taken down as it suffices for BLP - what are your thoughts? It has been on Wikipedia for nearly 9 years now with input from yourself and other notable Wikipedians. 45.41.181.75 (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I'll sit this one out. I'm kind of on the fence re notability, and will be happy to let others decide in this instance. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Fuck BoyEdit

Can you NOT redirect the article that I am currently working on, as you can see I added an In use template to the article to make editors notice that I am currently EDITING and which I have been for a very long amount of time now so next please do not interrupt me while I am editing or even try to redirect the article or else you must be trying to begin an edit war and many other administrations will get involved. Skinnytittykiesha (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Skinnytittykiesha: so am I to understand that you intentionally started out with all crappy sources, and that documented notability is suddenly going to go through the roof in the next few days? More power to you then. I'll check in again on the weekend, but honestly if sourcing is at the level it is now, I'll take it straight to AfD and make the redirect stick. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

text module "advertising" on the page Junker GroupEdit

Dear Elmidae, I have noticed that you have inserted the text module "advertising" on the Wikipedia page "Junker Group". I'm interested in improving this article. Could you please give me some feedback on what steps and measures are necessary to make the article neutral from your point of view and allow us to remove the text module? Many thanks in advance and best regards yon.i --Yon.i (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Yon.i: The problem is that the entire article is written with the aim of making the company look good, rather than just provide information. You need to remove wording that belongs in a promotional press release, and replace it with formulations that present the material neutrally (that inlcudes getting rid of many of the name drops of the compant name). As an example, this is what I would do to the beginning of the "Innovations" section:
JUNKER has been shaping added to grinding technology since 1962 with patented processes and innovative technologies. A few years after the company was founded, JUNKER it launched a world first, the first fully automatic flute grinding machine for thread taps, onto the market. In 1978, JUNKER laid the foundation for later developments with the introduction of the first CBN high-speed grinding machines were introduced. In the mid-1980s, the company entered into the automotive industry with groundbreaking inventions. For example, in 1984, JUNKER invented with technology like the QUICKPOINT machine. With this new point grinding, it was suddenly possible to handle, capable of handling a variety of different contours in just a single clamping operation. The computer-controlled grinding wheel moves along the programmed contour with pinpoint accuracy and machines almost any material from plastic to carbide. In 2003 JUNKER launched the first CBN high-speed grinding machine for complete machining of crankshafts in a single clamping set-up onto the market (the JUCRANK machine model). Another milestone was reached in 2008 with the JUCENTER machine model. and 2008, the company launched further novel grinding machines with the JUCRANK and JUCENTER models.

- that kind of thing. Maybe have a look at the tone in other articles (grabbing one at random, Robert_Bosch_GmbH#History). Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Elmidae:Thank you for your quick response and your input. I'm trying to implement it. Best regards, yon.i --Yon.i (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019Edit

Hello Elmidae,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.


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) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Dan Burton (actor)Edit

Would you please reconsider your AfD at Dan Burton (actor)? I did a Google search and found plenty of coverage of his half-dozen West End theatre roles and roles in UK national tours, and I added references to his article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: I actually couldn't withdraw the nomination at this point, because there is at least one "delete" !vote present. However, this does improve the notability claims. I'll make a note on the page. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. BTW, the delete vote is by a vandal account that was just blocked indefinitely. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

How do I thank reviewers?Edit

I sometimes get thanks for edits, but I wanna know how to do it for reviewers of my articles. Oct13 (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe you can thank for the action of leaving the reviewing notice on your talk page? That would be the only method I'm aware of :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

June 2019 Tree of Life NewsletterEdit

Extended content
June 2019—Issue 003


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

  Masked booby by Casliber and Aa77zz, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
  Rook (bird) by Cwmhiraeth, reviewed by J Milburn
  Vernonopterus by Ichthyovenator, reviewed by Super Dromaeosaurus
  Campylocephalus by Ichthyovenator, reviewed by Super Dromaeosaurus
  Unionopterus by Super Dromaeosaurus, reviewed by Ashorocetus
  Big Cat, Little Cat by Barkeep49, reviewed by J Milburn
  Félicette by Kees08, reviewed by Nova Crystallis

Newly nominated content

  Masked booby by Casliber
  Adelophthalmidae
  Plains zebra by LittleJerry
  Letter-winged kite by Casliber



Relative WikiWork
Project name Relative WikiWork
Cats
4.79
Fisheries and fishing
4.9
Dogs
4.91
Viruses
4.91
ToL
4.94
Cetaceans
4.97
Primates
4.98
Sharks
5.04
All wikiprojects average
5.05
Dinosaurs
5.12
Equine
5.15
Bats
5.25
Mammals
5.32
Aquarium fishes
5.35
Hypericaceae
5.38
Turtles
5.4
Birds
5.46
Australian biota
5.5
Marine life
5.54
Animals
5.56
Paleontology
5.57
Rodents
5.58
Amphibians and Reptiles
5.64
Fungi
5.65
Bivalves
5.66
Plants
5.67
Algae
5.68
Arthropods
5.69
Hymenoptera
5.72
Microbiology
5.72
Cephalopods
5.74
Fishes
5.76
Ants
5.79
Gastropods
5.8
Spiders
5.86
Insects
5.9
Beetles
5.98
Lepidoptera
5.98
Spineless editors overwhelmed by stubs

Within the Tree of Life and its many subprojects, there is an abundance of stubs. Welcome to Wikipedia, what's new, right? However, based on all wikiprojects listed (just over two thousand), the Tree of Life project is worse off in average article quality than most. Based on the concept of relative WikiWork (the average number of "steps" needed to have a project consisting of all featured articles (FAs), where stub status → FA consists of six steps), only seven projects within the ToL have an average rating of "start class" or better. Many projects, particularly those involving invertebrates, hover at an average article quality slightly better than a stub. With relative WikiWorks of 5.98 each, WikiProject Lepidoptera and WikiProject Beetles have the highest relative WikiWork of any project. Given that invertebrates are incredibly speciose, it may not surprise you that many articles about them are lower quality. WikiProject Beetles, for example, has over 20 times more articles than WikiProject Cats. Wikipedia will always be incomplete, so we should take our relatively low WikiWork as motivation to write more articles that are also better in quality.

Editor Spotlight: Showing love to misfit taxa

We're joined for this month's Editor Spotlight by NessieVL, a long-time contributor who lists themselves as a member of WikiProject Fungus, WikiProject Algae, and WikiProject Cephalopods.

1) Enwebb: How did you come to edit articles about organisms and taxonomic groups?

  • Nessie: The main force, then and now, driving me to create or edit articles is thinking "Why isn't there an article on that on Wikipedia?" Either I'll read about some rarely-sighted creature in the deep sea or find something new on iNaturalist and want to learn more. First stop (surprise!) is Wikipedia, and many times there is just a stub or no page at all. Sometimes I just add the source that got me to the article, not sometimes I go deep and try to get everything from the library or online journals and put it all in an article. The nice thing about taxa is the strong precedent that all accepted extant taxa are notable, so one does not need to really worry about doing a ton of research and having the page get removed. I was super worried about this as a new editor: I still really dislike conflict so if I can avoid it I do. Anyway, the most important part is stitching an article in to the rest of Wikipedia: Linking all the jargon, taxonomers, pollinators, etc., adding categories, and putting in the correct WikiProjects. Recently I have been doing more of the stitching-in stuff with extant articles. The last deep-dive article I made was Karuka at the end of last year, which is a bit of a break for me. I guess it's easier to do all the other stuff on my tablet while watching TV.

2) Enwebb: Many editors in the ToL are highly specialized on a group of taxa. A look at your recently created articles includes much diversity, though, with viruses, bacteria, algae, and cnidarians all represented—are there any commonalities for the articles you work on? Would you say you're particularly interested in certain groups?

  • Nessie: I was a nerd from a time when that would get you beat up, so I like odd things and underdogs. I also avoid butting heads, so not only do I find siphonophores and seaweeds fascinating I don't have to worry about stepping on anyone's toes. I go down rabbitholes where I start writing an article like Mastocarpus papillatus because I found some growing on some rocks, then in my research I see it is parasitized by Pythium porphyrae, which has no article, and how can that be for an oomycete that oddly lives in the ocean and also attacks my tasty nori. So then I wrote that article and that got me blowing off the dust on other Oomycota articles, encouraged by the pull of propagating automatic taxoboxes. Once you've done the taxonomy template for the genus, well then you might as well do all the species now that the template is taken care of for them too. and so on until I get sucked in somewhere else. I think it's good to advocate for some of these 'oddball' taxa as it makes it easier for editors to expand their range from say plants to the pathogenic microorganisms of their favorite plant.
My favorite clades though, It's hard to pick for a dilettante like me. I like working on virus taxonomy, but I can't think of a specific virus species that I am awed by. Maybe Tulip breaking virus for teaching us economics or Variola virus for having so many smallpox deities, one of which was popularly sung about by Desi Arnaz and then inspired the name of a cartoon character who was then misremembered and then turned into a nickname for Howard Stern's producer Gary Dell'Abate. Sorry, really had to share that chain, but for a species that's not a staple food it probably has the most deities. But anyway, for having the most species that wow me, I love a good fungus or algae, but that often is led by my stomach. Also why I seem to research so many plant articles. You can't eat siphonophores, at least I don't, but they are fascinating with their federalist colonies of zooids. Bats are all amazing, but the task force seems to have done so much I feel the oomycetes and slime moulds need more love. Same thing with dinosaurs (I'm team Therizinosaurus though). But honestly, every species has that one moment in the research where you just go, wow, that's so interesting. For instance, I loved discovering that the picture-winged fly (Delphinia picta) has a mating dance that involves blowing bubbles. Now I keep expecting them to show me when they land on my arm, but no such luck yet.

3) Enwebb: I noticed that many of your recent edits utilize the script Rater, which aids in quickly reassessing the quality and importance of an article. Why is it important to update talk page assessments of articles? I also noticed that the quality rating you assign often aligns with ORES, a script that uses machine-learning to predict article quality. Coincidence?

  • Nessie: I initially started focusing on WikiProject talk page templates because they seem to be the key to data collecting and maintenance for articles, much more so than categories. This is where you note of an article needs an image, or audio, or a range map. It's how the cleanup listing bot sorts articles, and how Plantdrew does his automated taxobox usage stats. The latter inspired me to look for articles on organisms that are not assigned to any ToL WikiProjects which initially was in the thousands. I got it down to zero with just copypasta so you can imagine I was excited when I saw the rater tool. Back then I rated everything stub/low because it was faster: I couldn't check every article for the items on the B-class checklists. Plus each project has their own nuances to rating scales and I thought the editors in the individual projects would take it from there. I also thought all species were important, so how can I choose a favorite? Now it is much easier with the rater tool and the apparent consensus with Abductive's method of rating by the pageviews (0-9 views/day is low, 10-99 is med, 100-999 is high...). For the quality I generally go by the ORES rating, you caught me. It sometimes is thrown off by a long list of species or something, but it's generally good for stub to C: above that needs formal investigation and procedures I am still learning about. It seems that in the ToL projects we don't focus so much on getting articles to GA/FA so it's been harder to pick up. It was a little culture shock when I went on the Discord server and it seemed everyone was obsessed with getting articles up in quality. I think ToL is focusing on all the missing taxa and (re)organizing it all, which when you already have articles on every anime series or whatever you can focus on bulking the articles up more. In any event, on my growing to-do list is trying to get an article up to FA or GA and learn the process that way so I can better do the quality ratings and not just kick the can down the road.

4) Enwebb: What, if anything, can ToL and its subprojects do to better support collaboration and coordination among editors? How can we improve?

  • Nessie: I mentioned earlier that the projects are the main way maintenance is done. And it is good that we have a bunch of subprojects that let those tasks get broken up into manageable pieces. Frankly I'm amazed anything gets done with WikiProject Plants with how huge its scope is. Yet this not only parcels out the work but the discussion as well. A few editors like Peter coxhead and Plantdrew keep an eye on many of the subprojects and spread the word, but it's still easy for newer editors to get a little lost. There should be balance between the lumping and splitting. The newsletter helps by crossing over all the WikiProjects, and if the discord channel picked up that would help too. Possibly the big Enwiki talk page changes will help as well.

5) Enwebb: What would surprise the ToL community to learn about your life off-Wikipedia?

  • Nessie: I'm not sure anything would be surprising. I focus on nature offline too, foraging for mushrooms or wild plants and trying to avoid ticks and mosquitos. I have started going magnet fishing lately, more to help clean up the environment than in the hopes of finding anything valuable. But it would be fun to find a weapon and help solve a cold case or something.
June DYKs

  Discuss this issue

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.


sent by ZLEA via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Missed a copyvio during NPPEdit

Hey! You marked Max Caulfield as reviewed despite there being a blatant copyvio. Please keep a watch for these copyvios :) It's easy to find them, simply click the info button in your Curation Toolbar and it calculates the chance of there being a copyvio. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@MrClog: Actually I was reasonably sure that the Youtube text is a copy of the WP text, and not the other way round (as is the case with these other two hits I found). However, it's probably safer to err on the side of caution, so I've removed it at this point. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

is this look okay so far?Edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus are any of my and others changes okay?--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I'm going to out in a full article review at this point, sorry :) Overall I'd say it certainly has improved. I'd remove the next-to-last entry from the Popular Culture section (these are popular science books, not popular culture, and especially of the general-extinct-species type there are thousands), as well as the Ogopogo image (unlikely to find favour with editors outside a dedicated cryptozoology article, and the connection is somewhat weak). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

so I should maybe call the section cultural influence--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Nah, just leave out the pop science books. As I said there are thousands of them that will mention Basilosaurus - it's not worth mentioning. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay sure--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC) Okay is everything else i have done okay, i am going to remove the ogopogo image now--Bubblesorg (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus okay how about now?--Bubblesorg (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

ComplainsEdit

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:TAURO1919 User:TAURO1919 12:36 July 2019 (UTC) I have seen that you have deleted some of the editions about birds because of a supposed spam, I ask you to review the articles before deleting them and to verify that the information is relevant and true. Do not return to eliminate anything without your correct verification. Greetings.

Okay correctedEdit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus what do you think of the progress?--Bubblesorg (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC) Just make sure to check everything--Bubblesorg (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to check everything - that's for the GA review to do (I assume that's where you are headed). I've only been commenting on things that caught my notice. For what it's worth, all the material about TV series with CGI monsters tends to be weak in such articles - this "fourth most deadly hazard" stuff is freely invented bullshit even if broadcast by the BBC. And re original interpretations, whether a cameo is "inaccurately placed" is for the source to say, not the editor (and consider whether "small cameos" are even worth mentioning). BTW, the reference for the "largest known animal post-KT event" in the Description section is dead - quite an important ref because that is a claim that needs to be well sourced. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

sure--Bubblesorg (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC) I found archives https://web.archive.org/web/20160321212438/https://naturalhistory.si.edu/onehundredyears/featured_objects/Basilosaurus.html--Bubblesorg (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Confusing description of MAMSEdit

Thank you for adding a short description of MAMS to Single-cell analysis. However, the way how it is stated now is not really correct. It is confused with other MS-based techniques described in the same paragraph. These are different techniques, and used for different purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natriumchloratum (talkcontribs) 05:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Natriumchloratum: Please feel free to fix that up and/or rephrase - I didn't really know where best to insert it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Tree of Life NewsletterEdit

July 2019—Issue 004


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

  List of felids by PresN
  Masked booby by Casliber
  Letter-winged kite by Casliber, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
  Plains zebra by LittleJerry, reviewed by starsandwhales
  Ornithogalum umbellatum by Michael Goodyear, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
 


Newly nominated content

  Letter-winged kite by Casliber
  Megabat by Enwebb
  Onychopterella by Super Dromaeosaurus
  Dvulikiaspis by Super Dromaeosaurus
  Kosmoceratops by FunkMonk
  Clussexx Three D Grinchy Glee by Hunter Kahn
  Giant golden-crowned flying fox by Enwebb
  Myxomatosis by Rabbit Vet

  Discuss this issue

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.

Sent by ZLEA via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Link to book chapterEdit

Thank you for correcting me. I was looking for URLs redundant with their corresponding DOI, I must have seen the DOI a few words before it without realising it was another reference. Nemo 17:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

What are you doing the my pageEdit

why you being deleted my page of Angel Tee what is my fault, I made a page on wikipedia often redirected to other pages without the as far as you know me? Roseirena (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
We do have notability guidelines that are intended to help prevent the encyclopedia from turning into a pop star fan site. Specifically applicable in this case are the guidelines listed at WP:SINGER. Please feel free to comment in the deletion discussion, which is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Tee. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Scientific conventions with English bird namesEdit

Hello. I hope this is now the correct forum. (Again I will repeat the basic argument here and add the detailed part later:)

There is an effective way of making my point I think: WIKI has quite successfully and correctly applied scientific conventions to Latin names. THANK YOU! AND WELL DONE! The problem is that anyone outside of ornithology and botany does not know that English names are as comprehensive and deliberately named as Latin ones. We do not speak of any old "common name" here.

In other words, English names have been systemmatically applied to birds since the time of Linneus, for hundreds of years. The conventions are strict and predictable. In fact since about 20 years ago, English has actually become more precise and reliable than Latin. Because of the upheaval in taxonomy resulting from exponential technological growth with DNA, laboratory biochemistry costs and digital processing, we now have daily species name changes. Ornithology has literally been turned inside out. It is very hard to keep up, so naming conventions are even more important.

Once again, WIKI recognizes the need for conventions with scientific names and handles them well. However, there is sort of a collective gap in management of common names. English common names are thrown together with all of the other modern languages. Therein lies the mistake. With birds (And maybe plants) there is very consistently applied convention.

So, one cannot say that "WIKI has their own style" in this context. Whatever you might think that is, it cannot override scientific convention. An example for clarification: Fulvous-bellied Whistling-Duck. The second word in the category is capitalized; in the adjective it is not. Universal convention. Also: Rose-throated Becard. You incorrectly write it as Rose-throated becard.

"SchreiberBike" and "Elmidae" are mistaken. I appreciate your work on bringing consistency to WIKI language, but scientific conventions are sacred!

This broad policy decision needs to be taken at some higher adminstrative level, but I don't yet understand my access...

Douglas Knapp

FYI: My history includes the publishing of several bird guides, one birdsound CD, association with several other field-guide authors, and collaboration with the most noted ornithologists in the Neo-tropics. (Hate to toot my own horn here, but feel the need since I am not getting the desired response!)

Douglas Knapp (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Douglas Knapp:, the correct forum was the the first place you posted at: the talk page of the Tree of Life project. I have copied your response there. Please continue the discussion at that venue. The link to that page is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Consistency_of_Scientific_names,_especially_in_English. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Teladorsagia circumcinctaEdit

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Leopard seal pageEdit

I added subheadings to the leopard seal human interactions page to add some more information about different interactions with humans. Unfortunately I ran out of time to do this. I'm new to Wikipedia and am not 100% sure how to undo your edits now I have some time to add more information.

As this section reads currently I am concerned that it may lead people to believe that leopard seals are aggressive which is generally not the case. Unfortunately here in New Zealand we have had a lot of Leopard Seals injured or killed because people think they are aggressive Pinnipedsnz (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pinnipedsnz: I removed the subheadings because these are generally not needed if there are only one or two sentences under each that are still well covered by the higher level heading. However, if you have more material to add to increase the size of a subsection, do feel free to put them back in. I would ask you to take care to avoid phrases like "tragically killed" (even if the source itself says so) as they conflict somewhat with the neutral tone the encyclopedia wants to maintain. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Elmidae".