User talk:JonRichfield/Archive 3

About Winkle etc

Thank you so much Jon for drawing my attention to the problem with Winkle. At Project Gastropods we routinely concentrate so much on creating new articles for taxa that editors (including myself) often overlook the basic search structure of the encyclopedia. It can be hard to work out what is the best thing to do with these polyphyletic common names. Today I quickly flung together a disambiguation page for winkle, although I am not at all sure that is the best solution. A while ago I was more or less forced into making an article for Sea slug instead of a disambiguation page. I don't know which is the better solution; its awfully hard to find RS that talk about all the various meanings of one common name. If you have any overall suggestions for this kind of problem in general I would be very interested in hearing them. Invertzoo (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Invertzoo: Apologies for the late reply. I encountered something very like this problem in an RFC on the iatrogenesis talk page some months ago, where my recommendation was regarded with favourable interest. I did not follow it up because, as I pointed out there, I am not a medical man. (Details are visible at : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iatrogenesis&oldid=614201427#Requested_move_Iatrogenesis_.E2.86.92_Medical_harm ) However, there were aspects of relevance to the current problem. There were several terms under consideration (iatrogenesis, nosocomial, medical error, and so on) terms that, although mutually comprehensible, with different words, each of which, though related in meanings and contexts, differed from the others in usage between professional persons. Furthermore, most of them are unfamiliar to, or misunderstood by Joe Bloggs.

In spite of the fact that I voted in favour of maintaining the split between the articles on Pectinidae and Scallop, I had done that for other reasons and in spite of the fact that for practical purposes at least, the two dealt with the same taxon. In contrast, we probably have many more examples in Wikipedia, where the common name or names refer only to part of a coherent taxon, or to a hopelessly paraphyletic group of species or taxa, and where multiple dissimilar names are used, either interchangeably, or in mutually incoherent contexts.

One of the articles where this makes a difference is the "Common names" article, to which I intend adding a section. I don't know how soon I shall do that but I expect to do it fairly soon and I think the article is on your watchlist so we need not deal with the matter now. However, for present purposes I am mulling over several thoughts. @Niceguyedc: has, as you are no doubt by now aware, moved your disambiguation to "Winkle", and very reasonably in the circumstances, although to my mind unfortunately. The claim that "The disambiguation page should be at the base title" is not universally applicable, and this is recognised in the Help:Disambiguation article. In its list of alternatives we find: The page at Rice is about one usage, called the primary topic, and there is a short message at the top of the page, called a hatnote, guiding readers to Rice (disambiguation) so other uses of the term can be found.

Now, this is thoroughly in line with your reservations on directing all users to a disambiguation page, a reservation that I share. The Rice example is highly apposite. Rice is a very common word that occurs in many contexts and meanings, but there is no doubt about which meaning most readers will have in mind when they look up the word. So let it be with winkle. Far and away the commonest usages refer to the animals, so it would be a major disservice to the users to have probably over 90% of them having to find "Winkle" via a disambiguation page. Conversely it would be an even more serious disservice to omit the articles on topics with related names, less prominent though they be.

However, this goes further. Speaking as biologists, we normally expect some suitably unambiguous biological name, typically a taxon name, possibly in a suitable taxonomic hierarchy, to be the best way to refer to an article on a class of organism, and with good reason of course! However, putting on my computer man's hat, I must observe that taxonomic references are predominantly hierarchical, and that hierarchical data structures are neither uniquely nor universally valid, nor by any means invariably appropriate or adequate. Winkle certainly is a case in point, but I am sure that you could easily think of several more dramatic examples where both Joe Bloggs and Professor Malacology would use the same informal word for roughly the same purpose. "Worm" might be an example, unless Professor Malacology happens to eschew its use, even in the sense of "creepy-crawlies", on the grounds that it is taxonomically infra dig.

In such applications I feel, and I hope you agree, that common names do have valid and necessary roles, more so in my opinion, than arbitrarily coined common names imposed on valid and unambiguous species that have no coherent or stable common name at all.

Winkle is just a convenient example of a fairly large class of topics, not necessarily all biological, nor even technical. What I would like to see for such topics is

segregation of related uses of a term or related terms for a given class of topic,

within which there are multiple terms and concepts,

each of which, whether also referred to by other common names or not, deserves a treatment on its own

into an article with its own (probably technical) title,

the title to be unqualified. (If you use "Winkle" for the disambiguation, then what do you call the real article? "Winkle (non-disambiguation)"?) Who would look it up under that name? Where would you get the most hits and the most redirections to what the reader wanted in the first place?

To harp on Winkle again, there is no reason why Joe Bloggs should not refer to "smallish, predominantly roundish, usually marine, usually edible, usually hard-shelled gastropods" as winkles, even though there is no taxon that conveniently refers to them, and Professor Malacology might equally well wish to refer to them, either as a matter of convenience, or in reference to the common usage, as in: "Two small bags of winkles, please." S/he would have no objection to calling them "winkles" rather than the taxon name, because there is no taxon name.

Part of my point is that it is altogether reasonable to have an article called Winkle in which we expand on the topic of winkles and on their shared roles in ecology, gastronomy, and general human usage and associations. This would match the role of the Scallop article, except that in the case of scallop no disambiguation happens to be necessary (yet? There are a couple of hatnotes that might deserve a thought).

What we would wind up with would be something like an article called "Winkle" dealing with each item and its associations in the group at a level of detail that would never be accepted in a disambiguation article, but including the kind of thing that people looking up "Winkle" would be wanting to see in the majority (probably the vast majority) of accesses. That article would have at least one hat note to a conventional "Winkle (disambiguation)" article, and it certainly would include technically valid links to the formal articles on the respective topics.

And I stress that the word "Winkle" would be the title of the article, and "Winkle (disambiguation)" the title of the disambiguation list.

Sorry to make such a meal of this, especially as it is in some ways obvious and some articles have already been written and established on very similar principles, but I have seen no discussion on the subject and I have seen a great deal of confusion where the principles seem not to be understood. I now intend to start drafting the "Common name" section anyway, but I'd be happy to discuss this matter in any detail that you might find useful. JonRichfield (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I agree with you on most of what you say, although these ideas can be endlessly debated. It seems that you prefer an article like sea slug rather than a disambiguation page. Sea slug started out as a short and crummy article, then on someone's suggestion I turned it into a disambiguation page. Then someone else complained, and so now it is a disambiguation page which is "grown up" into an article. Invertzoo (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll chime in here with my (non-biologist) take since I was pinged. The only reason I moved the disambiguation page to Winkle is because Winkle was a redirect to the disambiguation page. If the best solution is a WP:BROADCONCEPT article, which is what is described above for Winkle and what has happened with the aforementioned sea slug, then moving the disambiguation page back to Winkle (disambiguation) and writing that article at Winkle is the way to go. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 17:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Invertzoo: @Niceguyedc: Now, that was REALLY nice! There are so many things in WP that already exist that one keeps missing something and getting tromped on by folks who think they know it all and do not, and so it winds up with a lot of frustration and resentment and re-invention of wheels. And then, years down the line someone who really DOES know points it out helpfully! Many thanks for your contribution to this Niceguyedc; you have saved a lot of time and effort, and please accept my apologies for not having done the necessary research up front. Unfortunately some people don't read instruction manuals, and sometimes I might read them a little less than some others do.

One point I'd like to repeat though (not for instruction, but to highlight it in the context of this discussion) although I didn't know the correct terminology the first time round, it is quite possible to profit from having both a disambiguation page AND a BROADCONCEPT article, or even for a disambiguation page to include material matching two or more BROADCONCEPT articles or even for a BROADCONCEPT article to match multiple disambiguation articles because the key concepts use different words that do not fit into the same disambiguation page.

Now I must hunt up those medics and check whether none of then know (knew?) about BROADCONCEPT articles! Thanks again Niceguyedc! JonRichfield (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Niceguyedc, the difficulty with broad concept articles is that it is usually very hard to find RS to support an article like that, since very few (if any) sources discuss the fact that a common name is applied to many different taxa. The other thing, JonRichfield, is that it is not a good idea in terms of the structure of the encyclopedia to mix together, within one topic, multiple disambiguation pages and multiple broad concept articles, or if that is going to be done, it has to be done very carefully indeed. It's better to try to keep the behind-the-scenes structure quite simple, as far as one can. And to both of you I would say, although the three of us may end up agreeing on some of these basic ideas, you will easily find numerous other experienced editors who disagree. Invertzoo (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Invertzoo: You are of course right that it would be at least inadvisable within one topic, to have multiple disambiguation pages and multiple broad concept articles; but as I see it, I never suggested that. The idea is to apply such topic structures when one or a few words refer to the same topic, or at least apparently the same topic. Artificial example: I create a disambiguation article on "worm" including references to ringworm, roundworm, Annelida, platyhelminths, worm gears, terms of contempt, malware, and caterpillars (expand the list to taste and with suitable choice of terms). Now, the reason for that to fit into the disambiguation is not any one topic, but one word. The malware for example, has nothing else to do with the gears, which have nothing to do with the caterpillars and fungi etc. Some of those in turn would be adequate, compact and coherent topics in their own right, and each would have its own article. In contrast the Nematoda, Annelida and other phyla each would amount to a whole complex of topics, some of which could be combined into single article, and some of which each would justify broad concept articles as well as a number of single concept articles. I do not see it as a problem of principle, except the principle of deciding what needs to be said, in what contexts, and how people are likely to want to search for them and read them.

Your point about RS is valid, but one makes one's bricks with such straw as one may, and even though one is not permitted to synthesise, there is nothing to stop one mentioning things in proper contexts. JonRichfield (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess you are right, but some people feel that "disambiguation articles" such as sea slug, if they don't have much in the way of RS, are too much of a Synthesis. I personally think that they are nicer than a disambiguation page, and more helpful, and therefore maybe they are justified, even if one can't find much in the way of RS. I have always found disambiguation pages to be cold and kind of unfriendly-looking. Of course perhaps that could be improved at some point by dressing them up in some way. Invertzoo (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Invertzoo: Much apology; I have just discovered that all my notification input from WP has been going into my spam folder #$%^&*()!!! I now have to go and do a lot of correction and apology all round. <siiiigh!!!>

As you may have noticed, I am a bit compulsively cynical about some aspects of the WP standards and even the principles. My feeling is that as soon as the rules reduce the function for the users, then the rules are being misapplied. Now, I do really understand what synthesis is, so don't bother explaining, and what the folks say it is not, but ANY nontrivial article (which by extension means any article worth putting into anything with pretensions to encyclopaedicity) is automatically a synthesis. At the very least the author/editor must decide what to include, which points to make, which citations to put in and where, which words to use in which contexts, and what to exclude. Simply by putting the products of such processes into such structures, one is committing synthesis, and one hopes, committing it aforethought. Now, it is not enough we sneak this in past the censors and WLawyers, we also get led into temptation with primrose-path words like "bold" and <shddr!> BROADCONCEPT <ugh!!!>. I could wax biblical on this! "Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness" for example! For exactly the reasons that we need BROADCONCEPT, the Powers created the concept. There is hardly a subject in biology where multiple dimensions don't meet, with varying degrees of intricacy of relationships. And it is our job to tell readers that this means such and such to that, but part of it not to t'other.

All we need do is to make sure that any statement we make we can relate back to a suitable citation, then the synthesis is not our own anyway, but that of our source, and such entries are indeed fully sanctioned. Right?

To take our winkle example: there is not a solitary statement in our disambig or BROADCONCEPT text that we had to synthesise for ourselves, all of that is in textbooks and field manuals. And though no oceanologist, I could source very similar material for say Limpet, and I am sure that limpets too, are by no means a monophyletic group, are they? Synthesis is all in how you present it. JonRichfield (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I do agree with what you are saying. If you feel like you want to look at and try to help out with Limpet, Winkle, Sea slug, that would be great. I'd better get back to the Wikipedia equivalent of weeding and pruning the hedges. :) Invertzoo (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nephila clavipes may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of [[golden orb-web spider]] indigenous to continental [[North America]] and [[South America]]). Commonly known as the "banana spider" in the United States; the species is large compared to most
• ' occurs most commonly in the [[Antilles]] and [[Central America]], from [[Mexico]] to [[Panama]]), but also ranges as far south as [[Argentina]]. In summer it may be found as far north as lower [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Limpet may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Patellidae]] live on hard surfaces in the [[intertidal zone]]. Unlike [[barnacle]]s or [mussel]]s true limpets are capable of locomotion instead of being permanently attached to a hard surface.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:Bostonscribe/sandbox

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:Bostonscribe/sandbox. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Limpet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Winkle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of extinct mammals

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of extinct mammals. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Artificial intelligence

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Artificial intelligence. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on the RfC regarding the Ebola virus epidemic

Hello JonRichfield, per the policy regarding publicizing RfC’s, your name was chosen at random to participate.

The RfC link is here.

The question is:

Should we keep these newly created separate country articles about the Ebola epidemic, or should we delete/redirect them to the article Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa?

• 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea
• 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Liberia
• 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Sierra Leone
• 2014 Ebola virus case in the United States

Your participation is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

SW3 5DL (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments there. You need to go back and sign your post here. You have an excellent grasp on the problems there. It would be great if you'd manage the time to edit a bit on the articles and continue contributing to the talk page. SW3 5DL (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: I am much complimented and am willing to be of use wherever welcome, so please rattle my cage appropriately, but I protest that I am no medical man, decidedly no epidemiologist and no virologist. Also that I am a long way from the action, just like the Texans. Ummm... Well putting it that way... I'll go and browse a bit, but in a bunfight in this scale, I suspect it would be best if you directed me to points of major concern. Cheers, Jon.

Jon, that would be wonderful if you'd stay on. As for what's needed, firstly, there's all this distraction about these being duplicates of the main article but in fact, that's false. Secondly, the articles need time to develop. There seems to be an expectation that these articles should have appeared fully formed, as if they were good/fine articles. That's not realistic. And it shouldn't be the issue. As far as being an expert, you're well versed as a WP editor, as your post at the RfC shows. It's an encyclopedia, not a medical book, right? So what's really needed is for editors to start seeing this as an encyclopedia issue.

If we still had print encyclopedias, there would be a dozen related articles on this topic. That's because, these are sovereign countries, not a conglomerate of states known as West Africa. The WHO and the CDC gave it that moniker because it was easier to say, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia can't have separate country articles. And if you read the main article about it, you'll see it only devotes a small section to each country. It's focus, as it should be for a main article, is on the overall development of the epidemic. What's needed now is to focus editors on the fact that this is an encyclopedia. If you look at other broad topics across WP, you'll see they also have multiple articles. So I think this fuss over separate articles is a distraction. SW3 5DL (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nofel Izz

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nofel Izz. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Richard O'Dwyer

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Richard O'Dwyer. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Metacompiler

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Metacompiler. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Climate change denial

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Climate change denial. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic HERE. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: Hi, I regret to say that in spite of my promising to try to stick around and get involved with the Ebola business, a lot of stuff has hit the fan at this end, so I have contributed practically nothing if anything in the last few weeks. In fact, I have quite lost the thread. It is not even clear to me that I correctly followed the points in rapidly scanning the dispute about which I have been notified. If anyone has any particular points for me to comment on, I'll try, but no promises I regret to say! JonRichfield (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jon, sorry to bother. I know about stuff hitting the fan in RL. Hope everything works out well for you. Here's the gist of things: A non-admin closed the RfC, an editor named Floydian reverted that twice claiming it required an admin. The non-admin took it to ANI where Floydian seems wanting to overturn the RfC claiming canvassing, etc. But he's provided no diffs. I provided diffs to show all the rules were followed, etc. That's the drama. Comment if you've the time. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dragon Warrior

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dragon Warrior. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Anatomical terms of location

Hello JonRichfield! It is a little frightening how fast time flies. I've made a number of structural edits and copyedits to Anatomical terms of location. We worked together on it some time ago. Would you be up for another batch of edits? Right now I think it needs more references, some copyedits, and I am still trying to work out how to represent the 'axes' in a way that regular readers will understand (which I think at the moment is unlikely). I am also considering using {{lang-la}} to represent the latin references, as it is a standardised format and, although hard to implement initially, easier to edit in the long run. After that, I might put it up for WP:GA or WP:FLN. What do you think? I quite enjoyed working with you previously on it. Cheers, --Tom (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@LT910001: Hi Tom, thanks for the compliment. I have been having a bit of a look this afternoon, between the interruptions attendant on real life, and I think it is a valuable document. Like most of its type it takes scads of work (surrpriiise!) and I am easily distracted, so I found myself editing endoneurium and parallel evolution and the like by the time I had passed afferent! OK, one thing I have found is that the major interference in such cooperative enterprises is discussion of too much detail. What I suggest, seeing that we get on well, is that we independently watch our watch lists and carry on editing as independently as possible. If I change a link to fibre into a link to Nerve fiber and you don't like it, don't bother to argue, just change it and I'll defer to you as the senior author. If I had a very special reason for what I had done, I'll tell you and suggest you reconsider for that reason, at which you either accept or explain whay what I had thought to be the case was nonsense. (I am no human physiologist after all!) Will that suit? All the best, Jon (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I feel like the article is starting to get to a more respectable form. Your proposition sounds great! My thoughts at the moment are to model it something similar to the "Dorsal and ventral" or "Superficial and deep" sections formatted as they are (The term (Latin: Latin, "meaning") refers to something. For example, something something), and something like the featured list Anatomical terms of motion... with each section having an introduction, definition of each term, and then a final paragraph (one or more) that discusses them in more depth. I'm favouring this approach because I think most readers won't read the essay discursively, but will appreciate a readily-accessible section. I'm also considering merging the "human" section back into the "vertebrates" section, because there are only a few differences, and I think they could be easily covered in the respective sections' discussion sections, which is one reason why I've been restructuring the article. Other than that the thing I'll be most working on is citing. I used the sfn method in Anatomical terms of motion because it was the easiest method to make lots of different citations from the same work (like a dictionary). --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@LT910001: Hi again Tom, I see no problem with most of your points, such as {{lang-la}}. I think that more visuals would be good and will include one or two, which you can delete if you disagree. I also am inclined to include as many linked headwords and technical terms as practical. I'll proceed to insert them for now. If you disagree, shout as soon as you can and I'll desist. My reasoning is that it works well in the lists of botanical and entomological terms. Some people think that this makes the list redundant, because you simply include links to the things that you are looking up here, but I radically disagree; the list is valuable in any case, because it provides a hub of references and it also enables the innocent reader trying to make sense of the subject, to see a lot of headwords that he did nor realise existed, plus showing the editor of whatever standard of sophistication in the subject, which headwords are not yet served with articles. JonRichfield (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I totally agree. I think it's good to include as many technical terms as possible, but I am strongly in favour of minimising the amount of highlighting, so that readers only get directed to the relevant terms. I've also been removing some of the more redundant observatinos from a previous editor (eg. "ML (or M-L) is the mediolateral axis (sometimes spelt with a hyphen, medio-lateral)" --> "ML refers to the mediolateral axis"). --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@LT910001: I guess I can live with that. Let me start in again. Back later. JonRichfield (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@LT910001: Tom, I have stopped at a point where I have done little, but am being called away. I think I see my way to some improvements,but it would be good if you took a look and assessed to what extent what I have said is acceptable or desirable etc. Running. Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@LT910001: Tom, hope you are well; Making headway, but before I hit the mattress tonight, I cannot make out what this was in error for:

"Mesencephalic duct aka Cerebral aqueduct or Aqueduct of Sylvius, is part of the liquidean system of the CNS."

Finding possible interpretations was not hard; finding what you meant beats me! All the best till later; JonRichfield (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jon, no worries. Actually I just 'found' the article and renamed it to a more appropriate title -- I haven't had anything to do with the editing or content. After I renamed it I contacted you, as I remember you said on the Anatomical terms of location talk page it would be useful to have an article about neuroanatomy . Like you speculate, I assume the original editor meant the ventricular system so I've changed it to that. All the best, --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah. OK. That makes more sense. I'll proceed! :) JonRichfield (talk) 06:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anatomical terms of neuroanatomy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fundus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Artificial intelligence

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Artificial intelligence. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Two envelopes problem

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Two envelopes problem. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anatomical terms of neuroanatomy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fundi. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ayurveda

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ayurveda. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Prehistoric Bajada "hanging" canals of southeastern Arizona

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prehistoric Bajada "hanging" canals of southeastern Arizona. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Page move is requested at Talk:Prehistoric Bajada "hanging" canals of southeastern Arizona. --George Ho (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dental amalgam toxicity

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dental amalgam toxicity. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Climate engineering

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Climate engineering. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Open nomenclature, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taxonomy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vagina

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Vagina. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:PATH (Toronto)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:PATH (Toronto). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robert Peter Gale

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Robert Peter Gale. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Pinging you that a reply in Talk:Climate engineering awaits

Thank you for getting involved! A response awaits you on Talk:Climate engineering. 178.167.149.15 (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A reply to your argument has been submitted on the Talk:Climate engineering page.

178.167.187.167 (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Medicine navs

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Medicine navs. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nibiru cataclysm

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nibiru cataclysm. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:SupremeSAT(Pvt.)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:SupremeSAT(Pvt.). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scabiosa, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Peduncle and Corolla. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Euclidean algorithm

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Euclidean algorithm. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Your comment on Euclidean algorithm's RfC

Thank you for your interesting comment.

Your concerns about the present version are very similar to those which motivated my editing work on the article. Therefore, I would be interested to know if the reverted version (my version) is or not better from your point of view (this is exactly the object of the RfC).

Therefore, I suggest you to

• Add to the RfC a comment about my version
• Move your first comment in the discussion subsection

Thanking you again, D.Lazard (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Objectivity/DB

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Objectivity/DB. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Oseltamivir

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Oseltamivir. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Climate_engineering#Editing_disagreement_over_soot_particles

Our discussion above was closed yesterday. However I wished to respond to your argument today and upon arriving for the first time in days, much to my chagrin neither one of us appears to be able to respond there. I have since contacted the editor that closed the discussion, requesting that they re-open it.

So for the sake of completeness and not to lose the reply I had prepared for you. Here is is.

With respect to your desire that the article climate engineering should, under no circumstances, summarize the papers under discussion with my edit: "inject soot particles to conventionally produce nuclear winter conditions". Despite the peer-reviewed papers explicitly using that exact "nuclear winter" term. What has become clear is that we have discovered in the process of our discussion, is that really, you argue in a manner that strikes me as someone who thinks they know better than the original scientists. So with that attitude and position I understand that it feels ok to push your own point of view. We've all been there. In this case it is summed up in this discussion with the belief that you feel it acceptable to state that the scientists have lost "credibility" for using that apparently taboo term. Then after attacking their credibility, you then push to bastardize sentences that appear in their peer-reviewed articles. In so doing, stripping the peer-reviewed sentences of their important facets. Trumping over what, not 1 but what 2 peer-reviewed papers state, with your own pet point of view.

- Nobel prize winner, and nuclear winter pioneer Paul Crutzen's climate engineering paper states: "soot particles to create minor "nuclear winter" conditions" and in a Climate engineering review paper "pg 87 it states - "Besides sulfur injections some other chemical species have been proposed for injection into the stratosphere. For instance the injection of soot particles...has been studied in "nuclear winter" scenarios...

Moreover, to omit the climatology term "nuclear winter" would completely mislead readers on how the black soot suspended in the stratosphere would cool the ground temperatures. You yourself seem to not really understand this either, to clarify, it is by means that are not at all like the mechanism by which white sulfates cool the surface by solar radiation management. Instead the nuclear winter effect radiates heat from the surface out into space, owing to the black nature of the soot particles, which is completely unlike how the reflective particles, like white sulfates, go about producing true solar radiation management. To use an idiom, the difference really is like night and day.

To respond to each one of your bullet point arguments, since you put them in bullet points, I will keep with that convention, even though my 2 above paragraphs summarizes the main points I have towards your entire argument.

• So you're arguing here in your 1st bulleted paragraph, that the moment we even touch on how each of the climate engineering schemes work, that is, the process of summarizing them for readers to understand how they would work, this touching upon them turns the whole article into a "mares nest"...really? Jon, the article isn't a LIST of climate engineering proposals, devoid of all content but a complete article. So you are clearly mistaken. The only true mares nest is the one you are proposing, a nest of threads that have vitally important sections omitted, that would result in reader confusion. We also have this thing called hyperlinks the allow readers to familiarize themselves with climate mechanisms, where they can learn the details, like the seemingly taboo addition of the nuclear winter term.

• Your following bullet point, pretty much sums up your argument, which is essentially that you feel that "you know best" and those REAL Nobel prize winning scientists are wrong. Here, in your own words in case you've forgotten - "To use the terms in this article would be irresponsible. The fact that the authors you wish to cite insist on misapplying the terms for drastically inappropriate reasons counts against their credibility, and does not imply that we must follow their example and share their lack of credibility, whether we cite them or not."

• Your next bullet point is much in the same vein, that you know best, more than those Nobel prize winning authors. Here are your own words again - "They shirked the duty of authors to find appropriate terms, such as "particle umbrella effect (or winter, if you prefer)"

• The rest of your bullet points are really just more of the same. One particular argument of yours that I thought was most illogical but still needing a reply was the following - Nuclear winters and Firestorms ..."neither of which injects particles into the stratosphere at even a thousandth of a percent of efficiency, let alone harmlessly or flexibly (Have you transported any good firestorms lately? Nuclear or otherwise? Or controlled their duration and intensity irrespective of weather, or the physical and chemical nature of their particles?) Rival methods, of which there are several, could easily and safely achieve more like 50% delivery and tight control without significant residues or risks to lives or property. -

I simply ask, where in the world did you get all these opinions? Do you have any sources for your numerous opinions here Jon, such as, they inject particles at not "even a thousandth of a percent of efficiency"? Or that "rival methods"(which methods exactly?) would be safer and cheaper than conventionally producing the nuclear winter effect? Forest fires, as you'd know if you had actually read the introduction in the nuclear winter article, often uncontrollably inject soot into the stratosphere anyway; following natural ignition and individual arson ignitions. I know, and you know, that you do not have any sources for these opinions of yours Jon. So again, what is this but more of that "I know better than Nobel prize winners" attitude again?

• Your last bullet point really shows up your complete lack of knowledge again when you lump all particle injections together under the category of the "concept of particle shading". Writing "they couldn't understand the concept of particle shading anyway" when in reality the nuclear winter effect doesn't simply shade, but also radiates heat energy out from the surface. It, completely unlike all the other reflective particles that are proposed, produces a temperature inversion.

Secondly, yes indeed as you said, - "If you feel that no one could possibly understand particle injection without reference to how it happens in nature, then use a material example, such as volcanic explosions or tornadoes. At least no one would think that we are nuts enough to propose them as engineering solutions". - When as is written in the article, injecting sulfates into the atmosphere to cool the surface, creating minor volcanic winter conditions, that is a helpful addition. However, to come to the conclusion that someone is proposing an actual jump-starting of volcanic eruptions would be jumping to conclusions that aren't at all stated or supported by the sentence.

Yet when I have summarized; injecting soot into the atmosphere to cool the surface, creating minor nuclear winter conditions: which is almost verbatim what the nobel prize winning scientists wrote, apparently that is not ok? Clearly you hear the word "nuclear winter" and your whole body and mind freezes up, as in your own words you can't shake the "baggage" the term has, preventing you from being rational and instead you go jumping to the conclusion that someone is suggesting to start a nuclear war. That really is not my problem Jon, it's the equivalent of someone reading "put sulfate aerosols into the air to produce volcanic winter conditions" and falsely jumping to the conclusion that someone wants to kickstart a volcanic eruption because they lived in fear of a neighboring volcano erupting all their life. You are by all means free to jump to those unsupported conclusions if you wish, but you know that is not what the sentence states, nor what the authors of the peer-reviewed papers state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.172.194 (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@92.251.172.194 Please see what I wrote at Robert McClenon's page. I am not sure what you would like me to add to what I said there and in the RFC. Meanwhile, if you will forgive me, though I really do have a lot of RL to deal with late and soon, I did read what you wrote, and believe that I already have provided sufficient substance. You might find it helpful to read it more carefully in the context of an engineering article. JonRichfield (talk) 08:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply on my talk page. I will leave it there. The talk page is in time for archiving anyway. I reserve the right to ridicule nonsense on my talk page, but won't bother. I agree with you that the IP has a lack of sense of proportion. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Discussion is continuing at WP:AN concerning the closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reasonable comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Astrophysics

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Astrophysics. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

William Grove

I see that the article on William Bywater Grove was 'deleted' by being moved to User:JonRichfield/William Bywater Grove without leaving a redirect. Was the original just a test edit, or were you interested in creating this article? W.B. Grove interests me because most autumns I lead a walk in Sutton Park where we look for and usually find Russula claroflava, which he named from this location. I think he's sufficiently noteworthy for an article. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Peter, I am ashamed to note that though I had created the stub, I had totally forgotten about the existence of either it or WBG. However, I certainly would not have created anything of the kind for a test edit. I suspect I created the stub to supply a target for the links. My remark in the history explicitly states that it was a stub, so why it was moved to my storage without notification or remark, and in particular without checking for links, I have little idea. I fully agree, checking on his publications at archive.org, that he thoroughly deserves an article. Where to from here, would you say? I could re-create the stub together with a few refs to his publications, and maybe a few links, but that is nearly it. Probably if I did so, that would do, and you could add any material you considered desirable? JonRichfield (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that seems sensible to me, i.e. you recreate the stub with some refs and I'll work on adding to it. I think he belongs at List of parson-naturalists, which is how I got to the "disappearing" article. Very odd! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

OK; anon and anon! :) JonRichfield (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:73 (number)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:73 (number). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Richard Gareth Davies

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

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

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bgwhite (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mustang

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mustang. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:G. Edward Griffin

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:G. Edward Griffin. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Disparaging others

Do not use your user pages to disparage other editors, I've removed these inappropriate comments. Dreadstar ☥ 20:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'll not replace them but see no reason to accept that they were anything less than appropriate. No editors were identified, even indirectly, and the remarks were in the context of the previous paragraph, which referred to an upsetting and certainly inappropriate attack on me. The deleted text in any case would be invisible to non-visitors and impersonal to anyone interested.
  
• I don't understand your remark about my Refs section: "I'm not searching around your talk page for these, you should fix them yourself; I don't want them attached to my comments." How is anything attaching anything, to which comments of yours in particular, and what exactly needs "fixing"?
• While I have your ear, assuming you are still there, one doesn't want to run crying to admin whenever anyone starts shouting, but the current Mustang bunfight is mild compared to a lot of nasty exchanges I have seen elsewhere. I personally have dropped out of fights in sheer distaste, even when as I saw it, in dropping out I have betrayed WP, reducing articles in value and permitting edit warriors to impose their POVs because other people are too busy or too disgusted to continue. Other editors of the highest academic and educational standards have dropped right out of WP for similar reasons. Don't bother to suggest RfC (the mustang capitalisation sample is typical of why not). I have participated in dozens of RfCs and am unsure whether even half of them were worth it. In short, yes, I know there is an article on dispute resolution, and I realise that the powers that be hope that WP will spontaneously settle into a benignly self-regulated community, and that a lot of sparrows must fall at the whim of the warriors and wikilawyers (and admins, no doubt), but when is it worthwhile (in general, not just to me personally) to rattle admin cages? For example, how did you get dragged into Mustang? (I'll not speculate on whether the demands on your time were justified at that point of the debate.) JonRichfield (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for not replacing the comments, disparaging comments about others are not good even if individuals or groups are not specifically identified, read through WP:POLEMIC; comments like that are divisive.
• I took the liberty to add the appropriate talk page section reference template here. That way they won't appear at the bottom of the page under new unrelated comments.
• I've had a number of horse articles on my watchlist for years and have had to step in several times when disputes have gotten out of hand; most recently trying to referee a dispute between two of the editors arguing about capitalization and moves of horse articles, as well as each other's behavior; no one dragged me into it, I just happened to see it myself among the several thousand pages I have on my watchlist.
• Civility on talk pages is of paramount importance when discussing article content, especially during an RfC. Disparaging comments about other editors leads to a chilling factor that causes editors to refrain from participating, it's a huge distraction from the real point at hand - the subject of the article and RfC - and it violates Wikipedia policy. I've found that warning editors for personalizing disputes improves the overall conduct on the page considerably - although sometimes it does take more than a warning with some.
• If you're having trouble with editor behavior on a talk page, feel free to ping me on my talk page and if I have the time, I'll see what I can do to assist.

Thanks for your understanding in these matters. Dreadstar ☥ 00:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks; you have been really helpful. JonRichfield (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islamic calendar

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Islamic calendar. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Richard Gareth Davies

Hello, JonRichfield. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Richard Gareth Davies, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Richard Gareth Davies to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Wgolf (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I have commented at User talk:Wgolf#Richard Gareth Davies. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Creation–evolution controversy

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Creation–evolution controversy. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)