User talk:Loopy30/Archive 2017

Tody

I have restored the information you removed from this page (but retained your other changes). The article is about the family, but as everything we know about almost every aspect of the family is just the extant genus that means the family article will be dominated by that genus. As we learn more about the extinct species that can be added to the family article as well. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Redirect Capitalization

FYI - wikipedia search engines ignore capitalization. No need to create redirects for each possibility.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. However, wikipedia does not ignore capitalization in its search engine and creating a re-direct takes the reader directly to the page. Since ornithologists and naturalists use capitalized names for bird species (both words) and the wikipedia standard for all animal species is to use lower case names, the WikiProject Birds has requested that re-directs be made for all capitalization possibilities - see inset box at link here. Note that of the six examples given, I do not create the fourth one as I do not see capitalizing the second half of one double-word and not the other. Even so, there are almost 11,000 birds, most with alternate common names, and many subspecies also with a common name. Plenty of work for us both. Thanks again for your patience in what must be a most un-exciting set of page reviews. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No sweat - but I am sure it does. As part of the article review process I have/had taken on your redirects - not that difficult since they are all straight forward and a relatively easy way to eat into the backlog. I just thought that it wasn't necessary for you to create all the capitalizations. Cheers.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Blyth's paradise flycatcher

Be careful with the moves. I usually wait until the draft is taken away before I make changes. It'll probably go forward, but I'd wait if it were me. A draft is a draft and not an accepted change to me...Pvmoutside (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pvmoutside, Although 7.2 is closed (to further changes), you are correct - it isn't official yet. It isn't scheduled for release until 22 Apr so we shouldn't have to wait more than a week. I'm trying to review the bulbuls at present, and one is on the 7.2 list. I'm sure it will take me a few weeks until I get to the end of the bulbuls. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that the family page (http://www.worldbirdnames.org/bow/bulbuls/) is titled 7.2 (without mention of it being a draft). Only the updates pages still call it a draft. 01:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

.....not a big deal given the time line, but a lot to do on birds pages, animal pages, fish pages, mammal pages, etc. Not telling you what to do, but no harm in waiting either until both sides become "official"....Pvmoutside (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Align vs Aline

I'm not contesting your edit in Dune (crater), but it turns out aline was in common usage in NASA documents of the period, rather than the conventional align. Jstuby (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Jstuby, Interesting! Loopy30 (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

your correction in the nelicourvi weaver article

Concerning your recent edit in the Ploceus nelicourvi, I like to quote wikidiff: "In context|biology|taxonomy|lang=en terms the difference between binominal and binomial is that binominal is (biology|taxonomy) a scientific name, at the rank of species, with two terms: a generic name and a specific name while binomial is (biology|taxonomy) a scientific name at the rank of species, with two terms: a generic name and a specific name." Just to let you know ... Dwergenpaartje (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dwergenpaartje, I see. So Wikidiff lists them as synonyms with identical meanings. Is 'binominal' ever the preferred spelling?Loopy30 (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Binomial has three different meanings: in scientific naming, the only one where binominal is a synonym, in algebra where it is the sum or the difference of two terms, and in grammar where two nouns are in a relatively fixed order (as in knife and fork). I'm not sure which one has preference, although I get the impression "binomial" is used more widely. So the change is actually fine. Somewhat unusual wording is often the result of avoiding plagiarism, and changing such wording needs a bit more than just looking at the wiki text itself. Still, mistakes need to be corrected, convoluted phrases need to be improved, and a relatively large group of non-native speaking editors working for the English language wiki (like myself) sometimes needs a helping hand. Thanks for understanding. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

In Vedas

I was added some informations with references but why you removed? ~AbHi ^{Chat Me!! 📥} 10:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC) ~AbHi ^{Chat Me!! 📥} 10:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello AbHi, thank you for interest in adding to Wikipedia. The reverts were made primarily because they did not add information about the Vedas themselves. If there is a documented controversy about the Vedas that you want to write about, then that should be detailed in a neutral point of view using reliable sources and avoiding primary sources and original research. Particularly, it came across as a bit of soapbox rant. Lastly, it was a difficult bit of prose to read. This is not an insurmountable problem, as other editors will come along and refine it as long as they can understand the meaning of the paragraph. This is in fact what I arrived to do, wanting to change a spelling mistake (prooved --> proved), but found your edits were largely incomprehensible. Loopy30 (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Loopy! Hello. What i was added in that article is originally researched by Swami Vidyananda Saraswati. He was published a book about this subject. If you understand Hindi Then you can read. Book is "Aryon ka aadi desh by Shwami Vidyananda Saraswati". You can also study given references by me in vedic controversy. I never add anything in any article without a strong proof.~AbHi ^{Chat Me!! 📥} 03:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

There is so many wrong informations about vedas and other subjects which is connected to "Vedic Culture" in English Wikipedia.

Pepe Salcedo

hello!! i don t even know where to write this but....I m Pepe Salcedo, professional freediver and i am trying to get my article to not get deleted, any help will be appreciated

Hello to all, this is in fact yes, an article about me, i am second in Mexico as a freediver and I am top 5 in the continent for my speacialty discipline of constan no fins. Iwould like to have my bio available just as William trubridge has his (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Trubridge) or alexey molchanovs has his (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexey_Molchanov)

I would greatly appreciate it if instead of getting reviewed for deletion I could be assisted in the propper creation of this article.

I have Updated several references and I will round up some external links that I was incorrectly applying at first.

Thanks for the chance!!!! safe freediving!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepe Salcedo (talk • contribs) 14:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Pepe. While writing an autobiography is not disallowed, it is strongly discouraged, see WP:AUTOBIO. If you do wish to proceed, the most important thing in adding content is to find third party reliable sources that support the info that you want to write. These should be found first before adding any info to the page. Any info without references to such sources is liable to be deleted. Once you have found such sources, you must then use them to show that the subject has notability. If the subject is not notable, then the entire article will be deleted. As for other peoples bio pages, see WP:WAX. Lastly, you can sign your posts by adding four tildas (~~~~) to the end of your message. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Wallcreeper

I see you are waiting for advice from Peter coxhead on Taxoboxes. I have tweaked the Wallcreeper Species box so that the family shows to. To do this use |display_parents= . I have found a previous answer Peter gave to this question and he said "target taxon have to be specified via |parent_authority=, |grandparent_authority=, etc." Quetzal1964 (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Quetzal1964, I had found |parent_authority= for the genus, but did not know that |grandparent_authority= existed. Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC).

Not half as loopy as my spell-checker

Thanks for catching and correcting my "correction" of "millennia" in the Carbon print article. The I-didn't-ask-for-it spell-checker that so rudely red-lines text being edited flags "millennia" as wrong, and I foolishly had blind faith in the Great Oracle's false positive. Being well over 21, the correct spelling ought to have been indelibly branded into my brain during the Y2K fuss, but it seems a synapse or two must have deteriorated since then. 66.81.247.182 (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Raife

Hi Loopy30

I thought it might be because it is a disambiguous page, however other disambiguous pages appear in google search results so I can't quite get to the bottom of it? See Ailbhe for example. It's in the same category but appears on page one of a google search. Any help would be much appreciated.

Raife16 Yes, I think the category template had something to do with it and prevented it from being indexed. I have switched the given name category template out and replaced it with a disambiguation template and now it seems to work. Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Loopy30 thank you! Much appreciated.

Fawad Khan

Hi Loopy30, thanks for your recent edit to the page Fawad Khan. I recently nominated the article for WP: Good Article and if you think there are some typo issues in the article, please fix them. Thanks Amirk94391 (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Islamic Military Alliance

Hi, thanks for checking. I didn't see that you also fixed a number that was wrong before with your edit. I thought the IP changed it. The user made many wrong edits in many different pages over the last days, with several different IPs. --mfb (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi mfb, yes the IP editors are persistent (see my user page), but we shall overcome. There is still an inconsistency however, between the text (41 member nations - supported by a ref) and the table (34 original plus 3 later members) to be sorted out. There are four more nations that have joined that need to be discovered and added to the list. Good hunting! 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a Bangladesh-focused version of this Taiwan-focused editor. --mfb (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

mfb, that's a lot of occurrences you have logged. I have been seeing a lot of Bangladesh-focused edits on either military or bird related pages (different IPs between the two). Often, it is a spelling mistake (found using Lupin's Live spellchecker) that first brings the vandalism edit to my attention. Loopy30 (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the IP user was active for quite some time, and we had multiple users contributing to the list. The IP usually appears on the watchlist or the related changes of the linked page (=the point of the list of affected articles). --mfb (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Loopy30 Thanks for correcting my wrong spelling. Awefully nice of you. I am quite new to all this, but that is no excuse for spelling mistakes ;-) Best wishes, Laramie1960

Laramie1960 (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem, that's the beauty of a wiki, mistakes can easily be corrected and no error need remain permanent! Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Cup of coffee to read a long message !

Good evening Loopy30, Using Wikipedia does feel different now. I do not know how many articles I have read in the last eighteen years I use Internet. Thank you for the guideline for me to check. It will be a great help in the future. I am not sure if I can ask you on this page for help, so many rules - and not wanting to do something wrong. I do have an important question, for which I have found no answer so far. I try to be short: The French author I am writing about wrote 86 books. Not all were translated into English. The list which existed so far is not correct, it has mistakes and linked to French Wikipedia pages.Is it necessary if these books were so far not translated into English to link to French Wikipedia? Would it be okay just to add the titles and year of the publishing date ? Of course there exist 2 Websites (which are in EN/FR) which were officially approved by the late author. They had the authors private material to use, she gave them interviews, photos and so on. This is all verified on those Websites. Is it correct to link to them as I have done so far? thank you in advance for answering my question. Kindly Laramie1960 Laramie1960 (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Laramie1960, I will try and answer your questions and then add some useful tips.

• For editing the list of books, some of which have not yet been translated into English, it is perfectly acceptable to list some (or all) the book titles without them being linked to an article. Inline links from within the article can link directly to articles in French Wikipedia, see WP:ILL.
• If the list is incorrect, by all means be bold and edit it. You may wish to check the talk page of the article to see if these changes have been already discussed before. Once you change it, you should add reliable sources to support your changes.
• You can use any language for your sources, even though English sources are preferred, but you may have to provide translations of quotes: see WP:NONENG.
  

Good luck editing! 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Dauphin Louis Joseph

Hello how are you , in addition to the removal of information and sources I must warn you that Blue Indigo probably used a sock in may 30 in the same page plus he consider certain articles as his possession; see please the article of Louis Phillipe King of France where an editor was driven out by him. Plus there is a debate on the talk page but this is less important know than the matter of sock ; you are probably covering a sock . Regards Marc dolphin (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Marc dolphin, my deletion of the 'Impacts' paragraph was done because I did not consider the information in it to be either notable or appropriate for an article. I then read the discussion on the talk page and can only agree completely with the rationale presented by the other editors (Blue Indigo and Mezigue) that you were disputing with. Loopy30 (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Mezigue wisely put himself out of the Blue Indigo mess very quickly; I 'm not seeking a dispute with anyone , I seek a compromise, I reviewed my test many times and I brought it to the talk page. Since you are a Roller, I invite you to go to Louis Phillipe King of France page (see the talk page) to see Blue Indigo tactics in driving out another editor, also please check Blue Indigo contributions and you will see how he stopped editing after Louis Phillipe controversy except in trying obsessively to have his way in the Louis Joseph article . More importantly Blue Indigo used a sock in may 30 in the article Louis Joseph to delete my contribution (please see the article contributions ), you covered a sock by your actions ; I'm trying to warn you for the last time. Regards Marc dolphin (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar

Hi Loopy30, once again your help is so much appreciated. My goal is now to read again and again all those excellent help-pages on Wikipedia. I never imagined that we could actually get help. I am very impressed by all of you. Oh and thanks for the tip about Publication list. I will do it the "easy-way" first and then link to the French pages. All my best wishes, Laramie1960 Laramie1960 (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Laramie1960. Don't worry about trying to read everything at once, it can be overwhelming if you try. It is perhaps best to try to just learn by doing and mastering specific areas only as needed. You can copy techniques used on other pages to provide shortcuts to learning as well or you could search for a term like "WP: insert subject here" in the search engine, this will give you the behind-the-scenes pages such as the Manual of Style and other help pages. Also, as you have seen, you don't have to worry that your edit is not perfect. As long as your intent is clear (eg. from the edit summaries), another user may just pop by and fix an image file format or a stray typo on the article. If still stymied, you can always ask for help, either at the Teahouse, on specialized talk pages for wikiprojects (eg. WP:WikiProject_Biography/Arts_and_entertainment#Writers_and_critics), another editor's talk page, or even your own talk page with the . Good luck and thanks again, Loopy30 (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The Ralph page

Hello Loopy30, I just wanted to discuss my recent edit and your reverts on Ralph, I was under the impression that the names listed here fell more under the stand alone list criteria rather than the disambiguation criteria, since this page appears to be a list of Ralphs as opposed to the Ralph disambiguation page.

Just wanted to seek clarification, appreciate your input. Bakilas (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bakilas, you are correct in that the article has been classified as a 'list' on its associated talk page. However, the page is laid out more like a disambiguation page than just a stand alone list. For comparison, see William, a page listed under both WikiProject Anthroponymy and WikiProject Disambiguation; or Lisa (given name), a page grouped under WikiProject Anthroponymy. Both are really subsets of the dab pages that bring the reader there (William is a redirect from William (disambiguation)). Note that 'William (given name)' is listed as an "example of high-quality name article" on the WP:WikiProject Anthroponymy main page. All this to say that there certainly seems to be a lot of overlap between "name" articles and strict "dab" pages, especially when some "name" pages are nothing more than a subset of the dab listings and just classified as Anthroponymy articles with the hope that future editors will add etymology, history and other sections to it. In this case the 'Ralph (disambiguation)' page does not actually disambiguate between all the people named Ralph, but instead links the reader to the 'Ralph' page for that function. As at least some of the deleted entries were notable (eg. Ralph Malph and Ralph Furley), I restored the deleted information pending a further review. Perhaps this a wider standardization issue that affects both projects. Your thoughts? 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

You raise valid points with William (given name) & Lisa (given name). This does seem like something of a wider issue but I am happy to defer in this matter. Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. Bakilas (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's controversies

Thank you for correcting in my article "Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's controversies", the "warrent" into "warrant". There might be more words like this, for the reason that I wished to keep the original form of the quotes, which is written by non-native Nepalese journalists, and obviously is not in a perfect English. What to do in such a case? If you correct the mistake, the quotation becomes changed and it could cause problems for those wishing to search for these titles and quotes on Google, but worst is it on Archive.org. Just because of one letter changed, they might not find it. Please advise what to do when I wish to keep faithful to the original text, which is but with grammatical mistakes? Should it be corrected or left in that bad English? Thank you. Kaliage (DarkAges)DarkAges 15:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 15:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs)

Thanks Kaliage, usually if it's a direct quote or title I just leave it (I missed that this time). However, if we know it is an error we can put the template {{sic|nolink=y}} in after the word, this adds the [sic]. Alternately, you can add the template with link=n, and does not display the [sic], but lets other editors know when they go to edit it. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for adding the template. Just I am not sure now, should it not be changed to the original "warrent" (with an e) then? I mean, after adding the sic template. DarkAges 17:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 17:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC) Kaliage

There is no indication anywhere in the section that the word is part of a quote or a title, so we should use the correct spelling (warrant) without anything else. It's fine now as it is, we can leave it unchanged. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Much appreciated! Jkl1805 (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jkl1805! Every little bit helps, I figure... Loopy30 (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Sorry about those edits... I wasn't thinking tooo clearly... ;) Geordie.birch (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Geordie.birch, I'm not sure which edits you are referring to here. Perhaps you were editing as an IP address while not logged in? --Loopy30 (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Please help me find the Deletion Discussion for my article!

I am turning to you, because you had been very helpful a few times fixing my article. Robert McClenon proposed my article for deletion literately immediately after I published it. He informed me there is a discussion going on about this deletion. But being new to Wikipedia's inner universe, I cannot find that discussion already many days long, and thus I cannot react or contribute to it. I asked Mr. McClenon to give me a link to it, but he did not give me a link, only repeated my article is being discussed on "Deletion Discussion". There are archives, I know, but I don't know how to search among the thousands or more discussions yet. I got here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_proposed_for_deletion but cannot find my article here. Please help me find the link to the deletion discussion about my article.Thank you!DarkAges 11:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 11:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs)

Kaliage, you can find the link in the proposed deletion box at the top of the article in the words "this article's entry". When you click it, it will bring you to the Articles for Discussion (AfD) entry for the page here. Good luck, Loopy30 (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Your revert

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kinder_Surprise&oldid=prev&diff=796719191 yes. seriously. you can be smug about this until you step into the remains of a kinder surprise during your next beach holiday. the weight ratio of content to not-degradable packaging is exceptionally low here (for the moment ignoring the fact that the contents themselves are made of plastic, too (and ignoring the chocolate parts altogether)). and we haven't talked about the tin foil yet. i noticed that your motto used to be "Wikipedia is free fuel for the mind". well there you go attaching brakes.-- Kku (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Kku, while linking pages is one of Wikipedia's great strengths, over-linking is distracting to the reader, even sub-consciously when the link is not selected. Common words should not be linked to unless there is information at that page that is specifically relevant to the topic. The plastic container page contains no additional depth of information related to candy packaging in general or this candy in particular. Even your comments above have more info than the plastic container page which states little more than that plastic containers are, well, "containers" (of different shapes) made of ... umm, "plastic". Perhaps your comments on packaging weight ratios can be added to the Kinder Surprise page? Or in a more general section about candy packaging on the plastic containers page, with a sentence highlighting the low content weight rate of Kinder Surprise as an example? 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

About Carl Balita Article

Hi Loopy30, I would like to ask why are you putting this Tag deletion to Carl Balita article? This article is about a living person, and a pioneer entrepreneur! And as futher seeing at your user page you been added the said article to your vanity pages handle. Let me know how this article should be obliterate based on Wikipedia Guidelines. your feedback is more vital, thank you! :)

Filipinot@yo^t@lk 08:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Filipinot@yo, the deletion discussion the Carl Balita page can be found at WP:Articles for deletion/Carl Balita. Basically, the article lacks any reliable sources, as Facebook and the individual or company's own websites are not acceptable since they are not independent sources. As such, no piece of information within it can be independently verified. Since this is a biography of a living person, this page is subject to even stricter standards of verification than other pages and all un-sourced material can, and should, be removed by any editor. Even if such sources could be found, then they must meet the guidelines for notability within the field or occupation of the individual. Please read the embedded links provided within this message for more details and then add sources to back up the claims made in the article. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

White-browed fantail

White-browed fantail is now in Rhipiduridae; not in Old World flycatcher. Am I right? Jee 12:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Jee, Ah yes, indeed it is. Thank you for correcting my mistake.. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Owls

Thank you for the correction; since the source page remained an article with similar content, I wasn't sure what to think, and as the source page still covered the same subject, I figured that it wasn't a page split. Nyttend (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Nyttend, no worries. It's just that assessing and dividing up the information on the source page is probably a lot of work and there will be several editors from the project involved with very loose control and organization. Bit by bit, the source page will start to shrink in size, but it is always easier to check positive (ie. something belongs) than negative (ie. a fact definitely does not belong) information in an article. Added to which, information regarding the previous species was not always written with a geographic or subspecies description with it. As you can see, it started in May and might not be complete before December at this rate. Loopy30 (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Babu Ram Bhattarai

I dont understand why you keep removing my updates on this page. The article previously was written from a biased point of view, all i did was make it more objective. You dont want wrong knowledge to be floating do you? The use of the term 'was' was refering to his political status in Nepal.

Hello Nepaliwikieditor123, your changes to both this page and Sher Bahadur Deuba were reverted because they were unsourced additions that did not reflect a neutral point of view. Please read WP:BLP before continuing to add to these pages. From BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Loopy30 (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok then according to your strict policies: LET LIES REIGN SUPREME! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepaliwikieditor123 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 6 September 2017‎ (UTC)

3d Special Operations Squadron

Even though for convenience the Air Force Historical Research Agency omits ordinal suffixes on its web pages containing unit lineages, this practice is neithe authoritative nor is AFHRA consistent in omitting ordinal suffixes.

First, the consistency. The standard reference works for USAF units, Maurer, Maurer, ed. (1983) [1961]. Air Force Combat Units of World War II (PDF) (reprint ed.). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-912799-02-1. LCCN 61060979. Retrieved December 17, 2016., Maurer, Maurer, ed. (1982) [1969]. Combat Squadrons of the Air Force, World War II (PDF) (reprint ed.). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-405-12194-6. LCCN 70605402. OCLC 72556. Retrieved December 17, 2016. and Ravenstein, Charles A. (1984). Air Force Combat Wings, Lineage & Honors Histories 1947-1977 (PDF). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-912799-12-9. Retrieved December 17, 2016., all of which were prepared by and submitted for publication by, the AFHRA and its prececessors. Eash uses ordinal suffixes in its lineage information to indicate that squadrons, groups and wings are numbered with ordinal numbers. Note that Maurer's earliest book includes cammands (Roman Numerals) and all three of these works also refer to Numbered Air Forces, which also use ordinals, but since 1942 spell them out. The online histories repeat Lineage and Honors Statements (for many years prepared on Air Force Form 5). A number of these are available online. The vast majority of these documents, like the vast majority of AFHRA documentation use the ordinal suffix. The best that can be said for AFHRA in this area is that it sometimes issues information in a form that is inconsistent (as here) with its general practice.

AFHRA (or predecessor) documents using the ordinal suffix that are directly pertinent to this unit include Maurer, Combat Squadrons, pp. 23-24 (1st Photographic Section/3d Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron)

Historians, however, merely record. Current guidance for how USAF units are numbered is contained in Chapter 5, Procedures for Naming and Numbering Units, of Air Force Instruction 38-101, Manpower and Organization: Air Force Organization, 31 January 2017, which uses ordinal suffixes. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

for Loopy

dear loopy, I doubt that you are an expert in philosophy and history. Also, it seems you may have some communal and religious constraints in your vision and mind. so, please keep away from the Hans Ehrenberg page on Wikipedia. thank you for you cognizance of this. as you understand birds and animals rather well, please stay focused on that. history is for the historians, thank you. philosophy is for philosophers. if Muhammad the Prophet was a copy master, then he was truly inspired by Christianity and Judaism, ok. we take this as a compliment for us. thank you for you cognizance of this. Ehr1Ros2 (talk)

Ehr1Ros2, please keep your assumptions of my background and education to yourself, you are likely to be wrong on all counts and it is not productive. Instead, let's focus on your edits to the Hans Ehrenberg page. First, no-one "owns" Wikipedia pages, so please do not request that other editors "keep away". Second, your edits to the article were questionable and when they were removed from the article page, you moved them intact to the article's talk page without including any discussion of their merits. Third, and perhaps most disturbing, you continue to add random wikilinks to words within this text. This is a form of disruptive editing and will not be tolerated. An article talk page is not a palette for you to paint whatever stream-of-consciousness thoughts as links into Wikipedia text. Please stop or you may be sanctioned. If you want to discuss the article content, please use the article talk page. I am concerned as your fellow editor, Loopy30 (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Sharran Alexander

Hi there. Be careful when correcting misspellings not to break the URL in a reference. Thanks to a careless Ham & High copy-editor, we have to keep the original misspelling.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks, Loopy! I thought hbw were to be preferred, but I have now realised that ioc weighs more! Should we not retain "It is closely related to the ruddy cuckoo-dove (Macropygia emiliana) and the brown cuckoo-dove (Macropygia phasianella) and, at one time or the other, had been listed as their subspecies." this information? Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Adityavagarwal, yes we should indeed retain the information you mentioned. That is why I tried to include it when I merged the info. I did not add the words "closely related" because being formerly considered a subspecies of the other species should imply this closeness of relationship. Feel free to edit the wording even further if you wish. Also, although the IOC standard has been chosen as the WikiBirds project standard, I usually try to mention in the text if alternate classifications exist and whether the current IOC classification is (not) widely recognized by other authorities. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah! Thanks for the help. Also, could I trouble you by asking if you would like to review the article for a GAN too? Although, I would understand if you were not able to, due to any reason. In either cases, thanks a lot! Also, I hope you have a great rest of the day! Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

AK tank

Yo, how can you have Pakistan removed as the country of origin of the Al-Khalid tank? No consensus was reached to have it removed. Every site on the internet has Pakistan as the country of Origin! It is the country which made the Al-Khalid tank! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.61.164.168 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mr. IP user,

• I didn't remove the country name from the info box - check the page history!
• Even so, the removal of that info was correct, see the article talk page for full discussion
• Location of assembly or even manufacture does not necessarily equate to where the item was originally designed
• Any further discussion of the article content should take place on the article talk page (not here)
• You can (and should) sign and date all your posts with four tildas (like this ~~~~)
• In order to maintain the continuity of your arguments, please consider signing up for your own username.
• 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I was at the talk page, no one has responded to me and no where on that talk page does it say we have come to an agreement to remove that information.

I have been on this site and there are numerous articles where design does not dictate the origin section.

Because the Item I am talking about was developed and manufactured in the country that was removed, even differences in the design are there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.61.164.168 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is responding on the talk page, they are avoiding the facts im presenting so they can have their false and biased edit stay up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.61.164.168 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 29 September 2017(UTC)

National Contribution Month in Canada 2017

Good day, I write to you because you are an organizer of an event part of the National Contribution Month in Canada 2017. I would like to invite you to copy and fill these tables after your event to report on the results and share the link on the talk page: [1]. This is important to record the activity of Wikimedians in Canada and report it back to the Wikimedia Foundation. Thank you very much for your involvement, and if you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me, Amqui (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Ornithologist?

Hi, I am not aware of any work on birds by F.A.G. Muir. He was mostly into insects. Shyamal (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Shyamal, you are indeed correct. i have removed his name from the list of ornithologists and amended the lede of his article to reflect that he was an entomologist instead. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, silly error on my part. Shyamal (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you think Charles Crawford Gorst qualifies for inclusion in the List of ornithologists? Shyamal (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Shyamal, what an interesting article to read! As far as inclusion on the list of ornithologists, he does not appear to "be an ornithologist" even though he is definitely "bird related". He was not trained in any related field of study, but did work as an ornithology laboratory assistant. Although "elected" as an associate member of the AOU, perhaps "approved for membership" might be the more accurate term. This was the era when John Lewis Childs complained that "anyone could pay $3 to join the AOU and become an Associate Member". Most of all however, unlike some other non-ornithologists that are on the list (illustrators, collectors, etc) he appears only to have used his imitative skills for entertainment and not for the study of birds (behaviour, physiology, classification etc.). This also relates to the wider question of what exactly is the purpose of such "list articles" and even "categories". I use this list as an aide-memoire to quickly navigate to ornithologist pages to help disambiguate between those with the same surname or to quickly copy and paste the article name to use in linking authors names in articles, others may have different uses. I would not include his name on the list, but as an associated field (where exactly does enjoyment end and study begin?), neither would I object to his name on the list if he were included there. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 11:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that he is not an ornithologist by strict definitions - but as you say, we do have illustrators and collectors who did little science-wise on that list. I cannot even find suitable categories for Gorst! Shyamal (talk)

References

The Wiki Editor Mtg. in Ottawa Oct. 21

I would like to attend. You are the contact person.

Katsheron (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Katsheron, since space is limited we ask that new users register with the Ottawa Public Library. As an experienced editor, just add your name to the bottom of the project page and join us on the day! 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

response

I have moved the synonymous names into the lead where they belong. Projects do not overrule the site-wide MOS. Primergrey (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

...and I took you up on the offer to check out some other articles... [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] Primergrey (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Real Life Barnstar
	For leading an informative and helpful workshop. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jon! Glad you could make it out to the workshop/edit-a-thon. Loopy30 (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Loopy30

I too enjoyed the Wikipedia workshop at the library Oct. 21. I have a question. Whenever I click on the add an image icon on my Sandbox, I just get this:

• 
  Caption1
• 
  Caption2

What am I doing wrong?

Katsheron (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Katsheron, I think you just need to switch to Visual Editor or use the 'Embedded file' icon if you wish to stay in the Source Editor.

If you are in source editor, there are two different icons that each look like a picture. You appear to have selected the one to the right of the word 'Insert' that looks like three pictures stacked on top of each other, it is the "Insert Picture Gallery" icon that allows you to substitute image file names (for "Example.jpg") and associated captions (replacing the words "Caption1" etc) to make a gallery of two or more images. If instead you intended on inserting a single image, the icon you want looks like a single picture and is located as the fourth icon from the left on the top row just beside the 'link' icon. It is called "Embedded file" and will allow you to enter a file name and caption for an image with some size and placement options. A full tutorial can be found at WP:PIC.

If you are using the Visual Editor instead, select the drop down menu from the word "Insert" and select the word "Media". This will pull up an interface screen as we saw at the workshop. A note on this, I have found that the slower I type my search text, the more results that are returned. When I tried a test this morning, I typed 'frog' very quickly in the search box and got nothing, just a "No results found" message, but hundreds if I just typed slowly. Alternatively, you could search directly in WikiCommons (external link here) to find the filename of the image you would like to use.

Hope one of these methods works for you. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

Katsheron (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

OAG listed at Redirects for discussion

I've started a discussion to address the redirect OAG. Since you had some involvement with the OAG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion. I've fixed the incoming links, so nothing in article or template space should use the OAG redirect for now. Thanks, Certes (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:NAMB

Please read it - "It is usually preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous". Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Lugnuts, sorry you thought reversion was 'so rude'. I did indeed read WP:NAMB first, and as there are several other films named Sorcerer, it seemed preferable to leave the hatnote in, particularly for those readers who did not know the year of the production. Additionally, there are several films named The Ringer which are all based on Der Hexer (which translates to The Sorcerer). \Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Radha Soami

HILoopy30,

Thank you, I got it. 47.8.15.205 (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank You!

Hello Loopy 30, thank you for giving me the link to the bird taxonomy standard. I will adhere to it strictly and thoroughly from now on. Thank you. Rynchops niger 1998 22:19, 1 November 2017

Infobox state

template:Infobox state redirects to template:Infobox settlement. I learned something new today! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Jim1138 Yes, and redirects are replaced so that editors immediately know what actually is included, namely template:Infobox settlement. Editors only need to learn template:Infobox settlement and can edit infoboxes on 500 000 pages, districts, provinces, states, boroughs, municipalities, LGAs, etc. The replacement of redirects is almost complete. 78.55.72.63 (talk) 10:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks. So perhaps using an edit summary like "fix double-redirect" would be helpful here. Otherwise, if left unexplained these changes can appear as unhelpful. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Wrens vs fairywrens

BTW, all the names such as "blue wren", "superb blue wren" etc. are not used anymore since the 70s as "fairywren" has been pushed hard as alternative (and taken up). I am looking for a ref to support this though....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@ Cas Liber. Yes, fairywren has definitely taken over in modern usage. It is only older sources that refer to the blue wren, etc. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Similarly painted buttonquail was painted quail in my youth, and all the Gerygones were warblers....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Marvin Tile

Hi, Loopy. I have left this question in more than one question box, but it has been two weeks with no response. I created a new page following your directions at the class (at the library in Ottawa), which is perhaps different than how I created other articles. The article has been improved by other editors, but has not been released to be searchable in Google. My question is, when does that happen? The name of the article was originally "Dr. Marvin Tile" but has been correctly changed to "Marvin Tile" Katsheron (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Katsheron. Congratulations on writing a new article, that is often a difficult challenge for a new user and a biographical page of a living person (WP:BLP) is the hardest of them all. As for your question posted to the Teahouse, it was answered within an hour, see the response here. The answer given was correct in that there is one more level of protection (WP:NOINDEX) that must be removed before the article will show up in Google searches. This level of protection will be removed by a New Page Reviewer as soon as one gets to your page. As noted in the Teahouse response however, we have a current backlog of over 13,500 new articles that still need to be reviewed. If it hasn't been patrolled within 90 days the NOINDEX will be removed automatically.

A couple of other observations that may assist you. When you post a question to the Teahouse (or anywhere else) that you wish to watch for the answer, select "Watch this page" on your edit save, or click the Watchlist star at the top right of the page (beside the "View history" tab. Then at a later date (or time), you can check your Watchlist tab and see if there have been any changes to that page. You can always take it off your watchlist the same way if you are finished with watching the page. Also, you may wish to draft new articles in your sandbox (at the very top of the page between "Talk" and "Preferences") in order to keep a more public welcome on your main user page. See some other user pages for examples, they range from the simple to very detailed and you can build it incrementally in the way that suits you. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.

Katsheron (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that

Thanks for correcting the misspelled Avalanche. I appreciate the help. Txantimedia (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Txantimedia, no problem, I'd like to think that if a million editors all fixed something small on Wikipedia each week, it would add up to something awesome to behold! 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Loopy30. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Please be careful

Please be careful not to "correct" quotes. Also, please don't mark edits like these as "minor". --John (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)