Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hey there. We've bumped into each other before -due to my pet peeve over the misuse of the word "endemic" here on WP.
I was just looking over one of the first articles I ever edited, 7 years ago, Acorus calamus. I see you removed a chunk of text, diff., because of "removed copyvio passages taken from [1]", but the strange thing is, I wrote that in my own words in 2013, there is no way I could have copied that from a document from 2016. Looks like someone else has copied me!
Also, thanks for backing up my edits on aurochs. I'm not near done there, I still see numerous problems. Main thing is that genetics has improved drastically since the 1990s, much info there is completely outdated. I will completely rewrite the "evolution" & "domestication" sections (van Vuure is a good source, but science moves on, and I see he is being misquoted), de-emphasize the old fringe theories about African domestication as those studies have proven to be crap, de-emphasize Margret Bunzel-Drüke's 1990s fringe theories loved by the "rewilding" industry, bring more references inline, change the references to journal cites instead of web cites, merge more references... etc.
@Leo Breman: Well, that's shifty about the Acorus calamus text... you are right, of course, looking at the time stamps; it appears that paper just grabbed the material from Wikipedia, and didn't bother to attribute anything :/ Presumably a student production that did not get vetted properly. Do you want to re-insert the text? I suppose with reference to this temporal discrepancy, no one could object to it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it should be re-added, if only because the remaining paragraph still refers to the missing stuff -which is why I noticed it was missing yesterday. I remember writing this karyotypy stuff specifically to show the herbalism stuff originally in the article at the time couldn't be trusted (removed by Zefr in 2018, I see), and that the separation of the American populations as an independent species in the Flora of North America was likely spurious taxonomy. I still think both points have currency; despite that the herbalism stuff is now gone from here, it's presumably still elsewhere on the interwebs, and Wikipedia is read by more people than that document I'll wager. I also see another thing about 'ancient' British traditions which bugged me 7 years ago, which I think I'll just delete. I'll do it now. Cheers! Leo Breman (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
You might also post it on PubPeer, Leo Breman. Ideally, the journal will then issue a correction to the original publication, but even if it doesn't, independent review of the work of academic journals is valuable. That sort of thing can be caught by a bot, it ought not to get to peer review in the first place. HLHJ (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm, seems straight forward enough, and I probably should, in the interest of science and all, but to be honest I'm only mildly annoyed, considering I noticed and it got sorted on this end. In any case my thanks for the tip, HLHJ. Leo Breman (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
ANI
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This really isn't helpful. I have no stake in that discussion, I haven't interacted with Phil Bridger in 8 years (and then only twice, on opposite sides of disputes), and I don't think his last comment there had the best wording; that said, your response is clearly personally-directed invective and only raises the temperature. To be clear, I'm not threatening to block you or anything, but given your own edit summary you may want to consider refactoring/redacting it. There's nothing happening here which can't be reversed if erroneous. You've been around for a while, you're a fine editor, and I don't want you to get too upset over this. (Also, and as a general note, if you reply I don't need a ping; if I leave someone a message I can check it myself). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I've been considering it, and thanks for poking some more. I have never had an interest in stoking up a conflict or engaging in escalating tit-for-tat; which is why I will not be returning to that discussion at all. But the thing is that neither do I intend to reward Phil for such a snooty insinuation by rolling over or offering the other cheek. That wasn't "not the best wording", that was a calculated insult to either me personally or people in general who make use of AfD as a well-attended forum to sort out such conflicts - asserting that we do it to strut our stuff. And I find that particularly ill-conceived when it comes from someone who habitually acts on the far opposite end of quietly beavering away in the background. - All right, I'll try to adult here. Being unable to just silently lower my opinion of the editor and leave it at that is why I am not going to be an admin anytime soon. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
If it helps, I found him to be more than a bit abrasive when we did interact; at least for me it wasn't enough to worry about too much. I appreciate your thinking it through, if nothing else. Keep up your excellent work, and if you ever need help with anything don't hesitate to give me a shout. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Guideline for names on Infobox
Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Can you point me to the guideline to not using the common name on the species Infobox? I’m trying to update the more obscure Bettas (something I’m not sure others are doing) and I see people saying you can’t add the comomon name. But I read the template documentation and it clearly says that name is for the English common name if it exists. See, for example, Brush mouse. If you can show me the guideline, I’ll follow it. But otherwise, I’m going to follow the template docs. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@Chris.sherlock: The "name=" is for supplying the common name if that is the name of the article - as it is in Brush mouse, lion, etc. When the name of the article is the scientific name (indicating that that is the most common usage), then the infoxbox should display that as well. The alternative would be to move the article to the common name, but that would require demonstrating a preponderance of that name in sources over the scientific name. And particularly in the case of "obscure" species, that will not be the case. E.g., for "Akar betta", I get 2.5k Google hits vs 13.5k for "Betta akarensis". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
can you point me to the guideline? Also, I am requesting a page move (did this before I saw your comment). - Chris.sherlock (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@Chris.sherlock: I don't think it is spelled out anywhere; I'm just aware that that's the general usage. I would say it is implied at Template:Taxobox#Name by: Provided under this parameter should be the single most common vernacular name when one is in widespread use, or a single current scientific name otherwise. If there is a commonly used vernacular name, then the article should be under that name, and the box title would match. If there is no such name, then the article would be under the scientific name, and there would be no "widespread common name" for the box; thus again box and article would match. But indeed convention here may vary by project. - I'm going to kick this up to Tree of Life talk for clarification. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Chris.sherlock: Based on that feedback, looks like you have the right of it there - while not codified in any specific guideline, current use seems to be that if the common name is well-known enough to be stated in the lede, it can be used in the box. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
thanks :-) sorry, I’m on holidays and as I was enjoying Mt Lamington National Park I suddenly realised I might have been a bit unreasonable ,unselfish. I just got back internet connectivity and this is the first opportunity to respond. What you wrote before seems reasonable, and I feel I need to apologise if my time or behaviour was a bit abrupt or confrontational. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
No trouble, this was useful as a clarification for myself as well :) Happy editing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey before we get cross purposes
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I just wanted to say a friendly "Hi". Please see my most recent post on Holocene extinction: Talk, which will hopefully establish some common ground.
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Elmidae, hopefully I am doing this right, and thank you for the advice on making a separate Uru in Blue/Aoki Uru/Blue Uru page, it is appreciated! I am a little busy just now but I will pursue the link on splitting and the details you gave in the near future, thanks again!!--Iura Solntse (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Balhae Contrverses - Pro-Korean distortion
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You canceled editing to cause a war of editing on the pretext that there is no discussion. However, there is a discussion on the discussion page a year ago - and there were no well-founded objections.185.17.129.116 (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Plants, fungi, and other organisms (510 designated out of projected 1,200)
Many articles have yet to be designated for Tree of Life taxonomic groups, with 1,942 outstanding articles to be added. Anyone can add vital articles to the list! Restructuring may be necessary, as the only viruses included as of yet are under the category "Health". The majority of vital articles needing improvement are level 5, but here are some outstanding articles from the other levels:
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Elmidae,
Source Guide Discussion
The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
Redirects
New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
Discussions and Resources
There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.
Refresher
Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Your brief but helpful guidance back when I first started editing more seriously helped keep me from getting bitten and is thus partially responsible for my contributions since. Sdkb (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
From October 2019 – December 2019, the top ten most popular bat articles fluctuated among 16 different articles, with the December viewership of those 10 articles at 209,280. For January 2020, three articles broke into the top-10 that were not among the 16 articles of the prior three months: Bat as food, Horseshoe bat, and Bat-borne virus. Viewership of the top-10 bat articles spiked nearly 300% to 617,067 in January.
While bats have been implicated as a possible natural reservoir of SARS-CoV-2, an intermediate host may be the bridge between bats and humans. Pangolins have been hypothesized as the intermediate host for the virus, causing a large spike in typical page views of 2-3k each day up to more than 60k in a day. Masked palm civets, the intermediate host of SARS, saw a modest yet noticeable spike in page views as well, from 100 to 300 views per day to as many as 5k views per day.
With an increase in viewers came an increase in editors. In an interview, longtime virus editor Awkwafaba identified the influx of editors as the biggest challenge in editing content related to the coronavirus. They noted that these newcomers include "novices who make honest mistakes and get tossed about a bit in the mad activity" as well as "experienced editors who know nothing about viruses and are good researchers, yet aren't familiar with the policies of WP:ToL or WP:Viruses." Disruption also increased, with extended confirmed protection (also known as the 30/500 rule, which prevents editors with fewer than 30 days tenure and 500 edits from making edits and is typically used on a very small subset of Wikipedia articles) temporarily applied to Coronavirus and still active on Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data. New editors apparently seeking to correct misinformation continuously edited the article Bat as food to remove content related to China: Videos of Chinese people eating bat soup were misrepresented to be current or filmed in China, when at least one such video was several years old and filmed in Palau. However, reliable sources confirm that bats are eaten in China, especially Southern China, so these well-meaning edits were mostly removed.
Another level of complexity was added by the fluctuating terminology of the virus. Over a dozen moves and merges were requested within WikiProject Viruses. To give you an idea of the musical chairs happening with article titles, here are the move histories of two articles:
Awkwafaba noted that "the main authorities, WHO and ICTV, don't really have a process for speedily naming a virus or disease." Additionally, they have different criteria for naming. They said, "I remember in a move discussion from the article then called Wuhan coronavirus that a virus name cannot have a geographical location in it, but this is a WHO disease naming guideline, and not an ICTV virus naming rule. ICTV may have renamed Four Corners virus to Sin Nombre orthohantavirus but there are still plenty of official virus species names that don't abide by WHO guidelines."
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello friend here is a kitten for you. Did you know that the enzyme responsible for point colouration in Siamese Cats is carcinogenic to frogs? -Your Pal, Canolli
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I hope the recent reviews weren't too much. Starzoner (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Reviewing is easy, what's a bit time-consuming is that each one has to be checked for whether you managed to leave PAGENAMEs all over the place :p But the last bunch has tended to be better formatted on average - thank you. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Thoughts on the Salomonica articles? Feedback requested. Thanks. Starzoner (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me! I've removed the category "Salomonia" because it does not exist - doesn't mean it could not be created, naturally. Also, there's some divisiveness about whether it's a good idea to list each and every country that a species occurs in... generally readers are better served with a summary like "tropical South-East Asia" or similar. I know that you have received the exact opposite complaint from someone else, so I won't harp on that :p - it's more of a preference issue. However, in any case I would suggest NOT wikilinking all the country names. WP:Overlinking can be quite distracting in an article. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
AFD
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed you AFD'd Stefano De Nardis but it's still not marked as reviewed. Since you looked through the sources, you should get the "credit" for the NPP. MB 22:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Forgot to tick, thanks :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
You've got mail
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Elmidae. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.· · · Peter Southwood(talk): 07:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
White-headed Langur Edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Elmidae, I am new at editing Wikipedia articles, so I am a bit confused. Sorry not to have met Wikipedia standard, I thought my images where as good as the one in the Taxobox. Could you tell me why they are substandard so I don't post this type of images again ?Regarding the added value to the article, I thought having images of the species would enrich the article, specially considering that some of the images showed juveniles and adults individuals.Thank you for your reply to help me improve at editing articles.ALOnIShOnETH (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Abdullaah al-Ghudayyan Edits
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
This is a question regarding the removal of my March 25, 20202 edits to the Abdullaah al-Ghudayyan article. In your comments, you wrote, "the sections on both teachers and students are not encyclopedic. Notability still doubtful". I would like some clarification:
-How can we make the sections on teachers and students more encyclopedic? Other wiki pages on Islamic scholars regularly have such sections, and both sections were cited.
-What could be done to better show the notability? Adding the teacher and student sections was one effort to improve the notability, especially since it shows he has taught some of the most important and influential scholars in KSA. Also, being a member of the council of senior scholars and a member of the permanent council of iftaa means that he was one of the most influential scholars of the country and an important member of the government, which would seem to be notable.
My apologies if this is not the correct venue for this, I am still learning. Any feedback to redress these concerns would be appreciated. Thank you!
Hi Klopf012, in hindsight I shouldn't have removed both sections in one go. The main issue I have here is that these are just lists of names, not encyclopedic prose - I don't believe you will find this kind of thing in other comparable articles on scholars either (at least I can't find any). Lists of names of (broadly) "people strongly connected to article subject" tend to be acceptable in biographical articles only if these people are themselves notable, as demonstrated by there being an article on them (so that readers can go to that article for background). This is actually the case for most of the students, so I wouldn't object if you just added that section back in. As for the teachers, it doesn't seem to be the case. That means we'd really rather not have a list that just looks like namedropping. Do you think you can work these teachers and their influence up into a paragraph of prose, with a bit of background on why these are important names? Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Further: having had a look at a translation of source #4, you also seem to be correct about the demonstrated notability of the man himself. Taking off the tag again. Not one of my more perceptive days :p Sorry! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Elmidae for getting back to me with a helpful explanation and for your willingness to reconsider. Lists of teachers and students are a common feature in biographies of Islamic scholars, but I take your point that this does not appear to be the norm on some of the other articles of Islamic scholars that I have surveyed, so I will try to use more encyclopedic prose in the future.
A main reason that I started Wikipedia editing is because there are many notable Islamic scholars who do not have an English-language page on Wikipedia, such as the other teachers and students that I mentioned (I left off a number of others who are less well-known). In fact, I am waiting for a a draft biography article - Draft:Abdul-Rahman al-Sa'di - to be reviewed a second time, which was itself an effort address the lack of coverage of an important Islamic scholar. So it seems like a bit of a catch 22 to base notability on the presence or absence of an article. If that draft biography goes through, then I would like to make a few others to fill in some of these gaps.
I will try to write up a paragraph of prose related to al-Ghudayyan's teachers, perhaps at a later date. Thank you again for your help and suggestions! Klopf012 (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I did not indicate that the page was previous deleted because I didn't know it did existed. According the notability guideline South African Xitsonga singer meet more than 5 criteria. I improved the article with reliable sources. Take a look at the talk page of Benny Mayengani reverse your nomination for speedy deletion if you think he doesnt meet the requirement and let the community of Wikipedia input on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwaynemoony (talk • contribs) 15:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@Dwaynemoony: good stuff, those reports on his political engagement should do it. Removed the speedy nomination. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Humpback Whale edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed you undid my addition of the reference to Star Trek IV as trivial - unfortunately that maybe your opinion and hence I have undone the edit. Star Trek is a major motion picture series which has a large fan base and for it to devote a large part of the movie to the potential extinction of this species is IMHO not trivial! Proteus (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
...sorry, I don't have the stamina to get into the inevitable edit war with another fanboy ramming their favourite work of fiction into articles. I'll leave it to someone else to undo. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Please describe how you went about creating WikiProject COVID-19. What made you think a project was needed?
I've been following the outbreak and editing related Wikipedia articles since January. I'm not particularly interested in infectious diseases or viruses, but I've been to China a few times and wanted to monitor the outbreak's impact on society as well as the government's response. For a while, I was casually tracking updates to the first couple pages about the outbreak. Then a pattern began to emerge as February saw the creation of separate articles about outbreaks in Iran, Italy, and South Korea. New Wikipedia articles continued being created in early March, and the outbreak was recognized as a pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11. Knowing there would many more articles, lists, templates, illustrations, and other pages on Wikipedia, I created WikiProject COVID-19 on March 15. My goal was simply to create a temporary or permanent space for editors to collaborate, communicate, and focus specifically on content related to this ongoing pandemic. I'm a member of many WikiProjects and have created several before, but this one definitely felt more necessary and urgent. Most WikiProjects unite editors with similar interests, which is fine and serves a purpose, but I felt this project could have a much bigger real life impact. I don't think I was alone in my thinking; the project had 80 members by March 20 and 100 members by March 26.
Who or what was invaluable to getting off the ground?
If I'm being honest, getting this project off the ground required little work on my part. All I did was create the space and post invitations to existing talk pages related to the outbreak. Editors joined the project very quickly; 30 members joined on the same day I started the project, and there were more than 50 participants one day later. I've been a daily Wikipedia editor for more than 12 years, and I've never seen so much interest in a project or content added to Wikipedia about a specific topic in such a short period of time. WikiProject members worked expeditiously to build a framework and hang a barnstar, tagging related pages, assessing content, and starting talk page discussions about the project's goals and scope. I'm thankful to the many editors who pitched in to get the project established, and I look forward to seeing how editors collaborate in this space as we move forward.
What are the short-term goals of the project?
No specific goals have been posted to the project page yet, but I'd like to think members share a collective desire to ensure Wikipedia has accurate and reliable information about the disease and pandemic. Disinformation and misinformation seem rampant these days, so we're working to give readers around the globe access to accurate, objective, and possibly even life-saving information. Unlike some WikiProjects which may take a more historical approach to documenting certain topics, WikiProject COVID-19 members have the ability to mitigate the disease's spread in real time by arming communities with facts about outbreaks in their region as well as information about prevention, testing, vaccine research, societal impact, etc.Viewership of WikiProject Medicine, WikiProject Viruses, and WikiProject COVID-19 in the month of March 2020
What are the long-term goals? English Wikipedia has many of 'lumpers' who think there are too many projects already. The project has also inspired the creation of two portals, which I imagine caused some raised eyebrows in this trend of portal deletionism. What will come of the WP after the current outbreak subsides?
After creating WikiProject COVID-19, a couple editors said I should have created a task force instead of a standalone WikiProject. I wasn't bothered. The number of 'thank you' notifications I received for creating the page vastly outweighed these critical comments. I knew the page I created was much needed, and I would be fine if editors decide to call the page by another name. I understand some editors think there are too many WikiProjects. No one's required to join WikiProject COVID-19, but the 100+ of us who have already joined invite you to help with our efforts, if you're interested. As for the project's future, I would be fine if editors decided to convert the WikiProject into a task force, or even put the project into retirement if the time comes. Given the level of interest and impact the pandemic has already had on a global scale, I have a feeling the WikiProject will be active for a long time.
Another criticism of the project is its narrow focus. It is focused on only one strain of virus, and the disease it causes. Even WikiProject AIDS is about two species of virus. Is the scope of the project too small? What would an expanded scope look like? Why would including another virus strain in the same species, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus which causes SARS, not be wanted? or is it wanted?
Narrow focus? I disagree. The project may focus on a single virus and disease, but the pandemic has resulted in the creation of hundreds of Wikipedia articles documenting outbreaks in most countries and territories. There are pages covering the pandemic's impact on aviation, cinema, education, politics, religion, sports, and television, not to mention others related to the resulting economic turmoil. Additionally, there are hundreds of templates, charts, and other graphics. Who knows how many thousands of images and other media will be uploaded at Wikimedia Commons by the time this pandemic subsides? There's also COVID-19 WikiProject COVID-19 at Wikidata, and I wouldn't be surprised if similar spaces are created for other Wikimedia projects soon. Even if the focus is narrow, there's plenty of content for Wikimedians to improve and protect.
In your opinion, what should be the guidelines for creating a new project, as opposed to creating a task force or working under an existing WikiProject?
I don't feel strongly about new project creation guidelines, or the differences between WikiProjects and task forces. Project members should decide what structure works for them and call themselves whatever name they prefer. I understand project construction requires maintenance and can come at an administrative cost, but we should be careful about discouraging editors from proposing new projects.
Ideally, editors would only create a new WikiProject if at least a few others were committed to joining. I created WikiProject COVID-19 without conferring with others because I assumed the interest would be there. I encourage people to be bold and create project pages, but maybe ask a few other editors for feedback first. I'll let other editors worry about the guidelines.
What tools (templates, bots, etc.) are essential, or even just really helpful, for organizing and maintaining a successful project? What is something every WP should do, that maybe isn't doing now?
I don't have any sort of medical background, and I'm more interested in the pandemic's impact than details about the disease or virus. Most surprising to me has been the lack of preparedness for combating outbreaks by governments around the world, including here in the United States. I don't know how COVID-19's spread compares to other infectious diseases, but as I've watched the outbreak develop I've continually wondered why governments did not start preparing earlier. What was happening in China, Iran, Italy, and South Korea should have prompted action sooner.
What important things about 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic do you think folks should know and maybe have missed in the deluge of information coming at people?
1. Know the most common symptoms: cough, fever, and difficulty breathing.
2. Learn what behavioral adjustments you should make to protect yourself and reduce transmission, and remember to wash your hands.
3. Get your information from reputable sources. I'd like to think Wikipedia editors are pretty good at this last bit of advice.
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Elmidae and thanks for your good-faith deletion of the Will You (Hazel O'Connor song) song on the basis of it not being noteworthy, however I would argue that it is a very noteworthy song. It was a British top ten single, (the majority of top 10 singles ever made have their own articles) is her most famous song and has over 2.5 million views on YouTube so is still popular today. Would you be able to restore it please?
Kind regards, Huddsblue (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@Huddsblue: Based on the available coverage, it appears that this song should not have a separate article under Wikipedia notability guidelines. What we require are several reliable sources independent of the subject (i.e., not by the artists, the publisher, or a vendor) who have written in-depth material about it. Essentially, that means reviews or solid news stories. If you can find some of those, that would help. But mere listings and charting information are not sufficient, I'm sorry to say. Do have a look at WP:NSONG, which gives some more details in this regard. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Notability Tag on "Harumi Sato"
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello user Elmidae! First of all I would like to thank you for your contributions to the article "Harumi Sato" and your notice to further establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources. I want to notify you that I have been working on this request by doing research on creditable and independent Japanese entertainment news portals such as Oricon[1], natalie[2] and modelpress[3]. I have found and cited as many secondary sources about her achievements as I could find, for her appearances in notable films, television shows, stage performances, on runways and the release of her own photo book for example. Now, I would like to ask for your permission to remove the notability tag on the article. If you have any advice to improve its quality even more, please let me know! Kyugium (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Kyugium: the main issue I saw was that there was (and still is) not a lot of material about her post E-Girls/Flower time, which generally means that coverage overlaps with that of these groups or is only based on membership, and consequently there is no need to split out an article for an individual member. I'm still not sure whether coverage of Harumi Sato clears that hurdle, but I don't think I'd dig in my heels either way :p I'd say feel free to remove the tag, but don't be surprised if someone else disagrees later after reviewing the sources. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Elmidae: I see! Thank you very much for your advice and input. I will do my best to add even more reliable and independent sources that focus on her individual work since she has a successful acting and modeling career as a solo artist besides being a member of the groups you mentioned. I hope you stay safe and healthy! Kyugium (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Hawaiian monk seal
Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Elmidae,
I see that you have made edits to HoffmanJ7's changes. I had been considering reverting that editor's AGF changes, because the article was so radically altered. In particular, relevant categories were dropped, some manual of style guidelines were disregarded (perhaps out of ignorance), a third of the references were removed, & any cultural references to Hawaiʻi were removed. I think that this was an overreach & that a more gradual approach was needed. My though is to take it back to the edit previous, then to ask HoffmanJ7 to make more gradual changes in accord with Wikipedia guidelines. Out of respect for you & your edits, I thought I would ask you first. HoffnanJ7 is obviously an inexperienced Wikipedia editor who has subject matter expertise. I would like to encourage HoffnanJ7 in editing, but some respect to WP:EDITCONSENSUS is in order, IMHO.
@Peaceray: I've been having the same thoughts. It seemed a bit churlish to undo this entire thing, which on the whole is well written and definitely well referenced, so I thought I'd fix it up a bit and then see. However it doesn't sit right with me that the entire article was basically supplanted, and in one fell swoop too, so that there's no option to deal with changes piecewise. If you want to revert and then ask the editor to implement their changes in sections, and a bit more cognizant of existing material, I'd certainly agree with that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I will do that. Peaceray (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Aloha, all. This is HoffmanJ7. The reason for the updates is because the Society of Marine Mammalogy has requested changes to all marine mammal pages to have a more consistent organization. I agree that this is not a perfect edit, and I plan to make more changes tomorrow and the rest of the week to include more information, more recent photos, and keep up-to-date on Hawaiian monk seal news. I have kept a lot of the references, but the point of this change (again, dictated by the Society of Marine Mammalogy) was to have more recent resources and newer information. All of my information has also been looked over by multiple Hawaiian monk seal experts, and their input is also continually being put into these edits. I'm sorry that you both feel that I swooped in - but I was told this page did not have a curator and needed the overhaul. Please feel free to let me know what you would like changed, if there is information you would like added, and let's chat more about how we can work together! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoffmanJ7 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@HoffmanJ7: I'm glad your material is well vetted by experts - that's definitely a boon for an article, and missing from many areas. However, please make sure that you and your colleagues are aware that the Society of Marine Mammalogy, or any other organization or individual, has absolutely no authority about the content or organization of Wikipedia articles. What consistent organization should exist across articles is determined by Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and by community consensus. The SMM is welcome to contribute, but it cannot rearrange to its taste if the result runs counter to what the Wikipedia community considers appropriate. An article can also not have a "curator" in the sense that any one person gets to decide what is and is not included; again, that is subject to WP guidelines and community discussion. In particular this applies to removal of sourced information from articles, of which there was quite a bit in the case of Hawaiian monk seal. Sorry if that sounds a bit protective, but I was getting the impression here that an external task force is about to reshape marine mammal articles in its image. That approach would not go down too well :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I will not argue more than necessary, but have you seen the island designated by the coordinates I entered (see Talk:Baring Island) ? Furthermore, read Baring Bay and you will see that this text (wich is not mine) is nonsense with the redirection. Banks Island is Baring Land not Baring Island. I don't care if you make WP:en wrong, I tried to help. I return to WP:fr where I am a well known and trusted contributor. Best regards. --Jean-Christophe BENOIST (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I was thinking of applying for the autopatrol flag. Before I do, I wanted your opinion as you made a few corrections to what I have created. Thanks. Starzoner (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@Starzoner: The last several of your new stubs that I have seen have been all good, so no issue with that. But I would ask you to really do a solid review of the rendering of everything before you publish it - leaving in copy/paste errors from template articles, or pasting substituted templates in a form that doesn't resolve them has been a problem with previous articles, and should be easily catchable with a bit of double-checking :) Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thoughts?
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I just published Polygala arillata. Starzoner (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Starzoner: looks good to me, except you had three unclosed category brackets at the bottom. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Watermarked Images
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Got it Elmidae, will upload the new versions without watermark over images & add it to only the relevant section in article! Thank you! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shantanu Kuveskar (talk • contribs) 18:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
AI for Good removed spam
Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
I am the creator of the AI for Good page.
I added the webinar series, which replace the AI for Good Global Summit this year.
I used to opportunity to remove marketing material that Microsoft had spammed the page with.
@Bquast: My issue was that you removed the "Subcategories" section in favour of inserting the same link no less than three times (including one external link inside the text body, which we avoid except in rare corner cases). I can't agree that "AI for Health" etc. mentions are spam in their turn; they have all been discussed by independent sources and are relevant to the topic. - I have reinserted the webinar note, which is certainly relevant in itself, under a "Global Summit 2020" heading, with a single link. Have a look. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, okay I was trying to be thorough, but if one is enough great. I agree there are subcategories they are listed here:
But it is "Good Health and Well being", which is different from "Healthcare", which is Microsoft link marketing products to the healthcare sector.
Note that there are three Microsoft links in there and one link to a paper with a co-author from Microsoft. The other subcategories are Education, Space (not Microsoft Earth), Human Dignity and Inclusive Societies.
If you agree, I will leave the section, but correct the content a bit.
For instance "Good Health", is quite different from the Microsoft link "Healthcare", which is simply marketing its products to the healthcare sector.
Other difference are for instance "AI and Space", vs. "Microsoft Earth". Bquast (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Bquast: It looks to me as if the original intent here was less to discuss the subcategories of the AI for Good initiative, than to mention other "related" initiatives in the same area - seems that is what these NatGeo/Microsoft programmes are. That's good to have in the article, but in that case it does seem wrong to classify them as directly connected/subtopics of the UN AI for Good programme. So how about rephrasing that to "Several related terms have been used to describe related applications of AI to global issues. These include ...", rename the section "Related applications", and move it to the bottom of the page? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay, great that makes sense to me as well. I will do as you say. Thank you for taking the time to look at this again, and thank you also for pointing out that including a URL 3x can look like spam, I was trying to be thorough, but I will make sure to be more balanced in the future ~~ Bquast (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Elmidae, please read the whole article -> Range and characteristics. National Geographic is a good source, or is this better for you? Regards --Serols (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@Serols: Well, why did you change the statement without changing the reference? I'd assume that you are aware that this kind of misattribution is even worse than an unsourced statement, because it actively misleads the reader. Secondly, I still disagree that either the NatGeo article or the Britannica one are better sources than a specialized field guide. The latter is written by subject experts, both of the former are compiled by editors (actually chances are high that one of them has taken the information from the other). Not seeing a case for changing what's in the article at this point. Although I don't doubt that a dedicated search in the scientific literature could clear this up. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Elmidae, Wikipedia normally accepts the source in the comment line for minor changes. --Serols (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
What. Sorry, I'm rapidly losing my confidence in you here :() You cannot change a sourced statement to something that is not stated in the reference while leaving the reference unchanged. I mean, that's so basic I shouldn't even have to mention it. Come on, you've been here five years, I refuse to accept that you have been doing this wrong all the time... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Elmidae, it is common in Wikipedia that you ping the user in a discussion when you answer him. This is actually standard.
You reverted this edit and here you get the hint with source that the value in could be correct. Both times you reverted the edits to a value that has no source. Does anyone have to understand that? This value was also specified by the article creator. I changed your edit with the source, the discussion is over for me. --Serols (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Serols: Good grief dude, you still cannot understand what was wrong with your previous two attempts? Here's me giving up on you. Current article version is fine by me. (And pinging is optional - some of us actually keep an eye on our watchlists. But whatevs.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Redirect Disputes
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you. My apology for forgetting to sign it. I thought I had signed it, but I had not. I probably had signed a different post that was also two paragraphs. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Note A: Total is off by one; not worth looking for the error.
Note B Three food biographies moved [2] per discussion at WT:FAC
Note: The very odd dates used in earlier years result from pulling old data from the talk page at WP:FAS.
Good Article Category as of
Feb 23, 2008
Sep 16, 2008
Sep 16, 2010
Dec 1, 2011
Jan 1, 2015
Jan 1, 2020
Pct chg Feb 2008 to 2011
Pct chg Feb 2008 to 2020
Agriculture, food and drink
27
34
37
55
113
226
104%
737%
Art and architecture
134
188
321
450
683
1022
236%
663%
Engineering and technology
256
396
882
1198
1828
2407
368%
840%
Geography and places
191
248
424
523
716
1052
174%
451%
History
261
312
651
825
1219
1894
216%
626%
Language and literature
173
215
377
462
686
982
167%
468%
Mathematics
19
22
27
30
36
67
58%
253%
Media and drama
403
658
1352
1300
3070
3961
223%
883%
Music
357
527
997
1437
2532
3892
303%
990%
Natural sciences
544
686
1275
1717
2404
3426
216%
530%
Philosophy and religion
134
174
244
294
365
557
119%
316%
Social sciences and society
468
549
790
998
1430
1854
113%
296%
Sports and recreation
384
546
1074
1402
2350
3802
265%
890%
Video games
168
220
373
443
684
1349
164%
703%
Warfare
155
241
989
1654
2544
3996
967%
2478%
Total
3674
5016
9813
12788
20660
30487
248%
730%
Organisms*
119
130
402
528
685
1017
344%
755%
*subset of natural sciences
Unsurprisingly, the number of GAs has increased more rapidly than the number of FAs. Organisms, which is a subcategory of Natural sciences, has seen a GA growth of 755% since 2008, besting the Natural sciences overall growth of 530%. While Warfare had far and away the most significant growth of GAs, it's a clear outlier relative to other categories.
Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
In Ifnord's talk section, I explained at length, with quotes from a marine biology monograph, why the term "harvesting" is inapplicable to the Atlantic goliath grouper, a species that was never kept in fish farms. The term "fishing" fully meets the criteria of "standard terminology" and therefore it should be preferred to "harvesting." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.206.49.189 (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
No, you cited the minority opinion of a single author who thinks that "harvesting" should not be applied to wild population. This goes against the entire rest of the field and common usage, and thus will not be adopted on Wikipedia. I can pull out several hundred scientific articles right now that show the use of "harvesting" with ducks, deer, opossums, turtles, quail, tuna, whales, locusts, wolves.. all of them wild population. It's not going to stick; give it up. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Multiple repetition of an inappropriate term does not make it more appropriate. If linguistic analysis is used, the term "harvesting" can be clearly identified as an euphemism, rather than a scientific term, if the referred species is the Atlantic goliath grouper. See the following linguistic definition of negative euphemism: "Negative euphemisms deflate and diminish. They replace language that people prefer to avoid using. Examples include harvesting in place of killing, collateral damage instead of civilian casualties or deaths, relationship for sexual relationship, and intestinal fortitude in place of guts," in https://www.writingenglish.com/euphemism.htm . In Robert W. Holder's "Oxford Dictionary of Euphemisms" (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), the verb "harvest" is described as a mainly American euphemism and defined as "to kill for personal gratification." (p. 209). The use of negative euphemisms, particularly if these are less common in British or Australian English than in U.S. English, is at variance with Wikipedia's principle of neutrality. By this logic, one could similarly use the euphemistic term "sweat" (Schweiss) for the blood of a wounded game animal, as this term is commonly used in German hunting language ( http://wiredtohunt.com/2012/08/09/bowhunting-whitetails-the-eberhart-way-killing-deer-not-harvesting/ ). But since Wikipedia does refrain from calling blood "sweat," the term "fishing" should be similarly preferred over "harvesting" as far as it is used for the Atlantic goliath grouper, a species that was never kept in fish farms.
Multiple repetition of an inappropriate term does not make it more appropriate - actually it does, if the "inappropriate" is a minority opinion, and the overwhelming majority of those sources that are regarded as reliable and representative use it. As is the case here. Wikipedia is not the place to push for revisions of language use, we merely document what IS in use. (If I have to explain why dragging in made-up translated terms is nonsense, I'll give up right here and now.) - As a conservation ecologist, I'm actually in sympathy with the underlying notion of less commodification of wildlife, but that doesn't mean I'll ignore WP's purpose (document, don't proscribe) or accept people riding personal philosophical hobby-horses through individual subjects. That way lies a single article on a Taiwanese topic replacing the name with "Republic of China (ROC)" because some editor wanted to have their way there. If you want to change usage of that term throughout Wikipedia, I suggest opening a topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
(Also please remember to sign your posts with four tildes - ~~~~) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia's own definition of euphemism: https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Euphemism . It clearly states that the purpose of this practice is avoidance, mitigation, understatement, substitution, metaphoric expression, circumlocution, etc., none of which is compatible with the principles of a Wikipedia entry. If you want to argue in favor of "harvesting," you either need to prove that a preference for euphemistic terms ('harvesting") over factual ones ("fishing") is compatible with Wikipedia's principles, or you need to disprove that "harvesting" is an euphemistic term if applied to a wild population, or you need to prove that the "Oxford Dictionary of Euphemisms" represents a minority and personal opinion in defining which words are euphemistic and which aren't.114.206.49.189 (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue endlessly with you about what is and is not a euphemism. Wikipedia follows majority usage in the reliable literature of the field; that usage is "harvesting". This is a standard guideline of the project and is not going to be overthrown for individual articles because you have a bee in your bonnet about the term. If you want to challenge this, I've pointed you to an appropriate forum to make your case and gather community support. Let's please stop this here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia's own definition of "harvest" mentions the application of the term to fishing and hunting only with regard to Canada, whereas its glossary of fishing terms clearly specifies that the term "harvest" refers to a specific element of fishing: "the number or weight of fish caught and retained from a given area over a given period of time. Note that landings, catch, and harvest are different." As such, this is not a valid argument to dismiss the generic term "fishing" in favor of a euphemistic term whose use is geographically and semantically more limited than that of "fishing." So far you haven't provided any argument against the use of "fishing," only in favor of "harvesting."114.206.49.189 (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
For the last time - follow overwhelming usage in the field, this term has been adopted for general usage in relevant Wikipedia articles, and editors are not going to consent to you switching it up in individual cases for your fancy. I'm not even going to point out the obvious failure of interpreting that Canada subsection correctly. Since you seem willing to ride this into the ground here forever, I am now going to put a stop to this. Your edits have been objected to by multiple editors; that means that they should not be implemented unless you can establish consensus in an appropriate forum - that is not my talk page, but Talk:Atlantic goliath grouper or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, where other people will be able to chime in. Out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
White rhinoceros names in local languages
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
It feels appropriate to include, as the overwhelming remaining population is in South Africa (and those names are not mentioned anywhere in the article, or on WP). Appropriate for the English-language article in that early field observations note those names, and at least Mohoohoo was added to extended English dictionaries. – SJ + 15:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@Sj: Not sure that dict entry is all that convincing, but okay. However it really would need to be phrased differently to avoid the impression that this was a "commonly used name" - it's not something that is demonstrated by inclusion in that ZA dictionary, and the same could be said of any of these entries. Suggest something like "Variations of the name mohohu or mohohoo were used in the Sotho and Tswana languages." (Tswana being the former Bechuana) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough ~ there are quite a lot of names! Perhaps just worth a note that it has been known by many regional names, linking to that list. Thanks, – SJ + 22:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Thankyou for keeping an eye on Single Liquid Flow Battery article
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Elmidae, I'm Laura, the creator of Single Liquid Flow Battery article. I would highly appreciate and be very grateful to you if you can help or guide me to improve this article rather than deleting this. I'm actually an engineer from western Isles of Scotland and the creator of this page last year. I was a wiki editor for few years. I grew up in Knoydart, which is a remote peninsula and energy for our community came from a small hydro system rather than the main grid, and proud to be the first female electrical engineer to emerge from this remote community:-). The technology used in this article was first tested there and manage to save our community a fortune by not replacing the hydro turbine with a Diesel generator. I thought I should start a discussion about this technology and created this article after obtaining permission from the inventor. It's purely for non commercial purpose. I should admit that I do have an emotional bond with this technology as this was donated to the community and it genuinely helped the community. But I have no commercial intention to promote a company or a product. The technology it self was quite unique as it has only single liquid and had a very simple setup allowing less fortunate remote communities such as Knoydart to easily acquire and maintain it. Having a single liquid makes a massive difference! Other flow battery variants I had come across used two liquids requiring lots of space and lots of auxiliary equipment such as pumps, valves and sensors making it hard to maintain. When I learnt about this, I realised that it's NOT a Flow Battery as the cathode or the anode is not in flow or liquid form, which is the definition of "flow batteries". Instead the electrolyte and part of the cathode is converted to free flowing liquid, making this a different battery variant. It uses solvated electron solution trapped in the anode compartment between the separator and anode current collector, which is clearly a non-flow liquid component (not plating), so this cannot even be classified as a hybrid flow battery. I just noticed that a user called Jamie had edited this and then had deleted "commercially sensitive" section, which has triggered a curator to mark this as AFD. I contacted the user and asked what he did and specifically requested not to add anything which can be promotional or commercial in nature. I have reviewed this article again and have removed any new added sections which I thought was a bit promotional. --Laurawoods1979 (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Liked your comment on Negroid
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Your comment about "barking up the wrong tree" at Talk:Negroid#Map_from_the_Horniman_museum_is_correct was great ! I'd suggest a compromise: The Horniman map is correct because it correctly represents the fantasy of its author ;-) Rsk6400 (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
It's a little tricky if you think you are discussing whether an image of an inaccurate map is good enough for an article, while the other party is actually basing their position on thinking that the map is accurate. Eh well :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Bee-eater
Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hello there! You explain please, why you make this edit and how is the picture that you are trying to push, a clearer one. The fact is, that your preferred picture is -- despite high nominal resolution -- of much lower quality (compare both's detail level in full size: [3][4]) and that you don't even see the full colours, including the blue tail, so that I'm actually not sure if it's the right species. And why is the illustration questioned only now that I added a self-made photo? Is this prohibited? I don't agree with the changes. Thanks. --A.Savin (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@A.Savin: self-made photos are certainly not a problem. It's getting a little confusing there, with everyone putting in their own favourites... in the recent past we've had three box images, none of which is bad: [5], [6], [7] Of these I think #1 is the best because it has the strongest contrast and thus the strongest colours. But that's pretty much an aesthetics debate. Reverting back and forth is probably not the way to go about this. How about putting all three up on the talk page and asking people to comment on their choice? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I didn't ask there so far, because my version seemed to be stable and no one had problems for the last days. To ask Dan arndt is useless, I tried to contact them on their talk page several times, but they don't answer me in general, probably deeming any discussion with me below their dignity (for whatever reason). So, I assume you are the one who actually shoulkd be asked. Before my version, this one is obviously not questionable due to low quality and, again, the not visible blue tail. So can you answer the simple question, please. If a bird is called "Blue-tailed bee-eater", and the "blue-tailed" is actually its main feature to distinguish from other species, how can an encyclopedic illustration be useful, if it's not depicted. And why do you remove the gallery, despite the fact it is not overload, has relevant descriptions and subject? Thanks. --A.Savin (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I've put them up on the talk page. Re gallery: basically it's laid out at WP:GALLERY. The main point being, don't just put up multiple images of the same subject because it looks nice. That is not what WP is for. Each image should illustrate specific facets that are not being covered by images already present. E.g., in articles on tree species, we often have a habitus image in the box, and somewhere in the text an image of the flowers and/or fruit. If the article is not long enough to treat these in the text, then a gallery is appropriate for the latter. But it shouldn't just contain "more of the same". The equivalent for birds would be the other sex (if plumage differences - but that is also often put into the box as a second image), nest, eggs, or specific and relevant behaviour. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:GALLERY is only prohibiting galleries with many similar, uncaptioned, and/or trivially captioned images, because for the image repository we have Commons. My version is not violating it, as the images are clearly different, and the small gallery is a value added for the article. And there is no other policy on galleries. And I added your preferred picture to the gallery. So where is the problem, please? --A.Savin (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
For one, I don't think that frontal and lateral view are things that necessarily both need to be in the article, and fall into the the "similar image" category. A flight image is handy (although this is not a particularly great one). However, this minimal gallery is not something I'm prepared to fight about :p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Noted. Good luck with that one. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Something that lends grace, beauty or festivity
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This heading could describe a silver bell or shrunken reindeer head, but also for a Tree someone Uses as an Ornament. Forgive what looked like serial snarkiness, I usually describe these types of edits as "Implied", but every hundred or so, I like to break the tedium, "spice things up" mildly, keeps me sane. Anyway, this self-referential redundancy stuff is frowned upon by MOS:HEAD and most people shouldn't mistake Tree#Uses for Christmas#Decorations, but in the spirit of the season, I'll make no mountain of this molehill. Just food for thought. Have a clean and sober World Day for Cultural Diversity for Dialogue and Development, or get absolutely hammered, whatever is customary in your neck of these strange new woods! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: Well, there's a limited amount of tussling one should be willing to expend on such matters, so if we can let it rest in the current state I'd be happy (for the record, I think the latin/resin/camphor heading is an improvement, but the lede sentence suffered from being condensed.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Aye, life is short for us non-trees, let's just agree you don't really think "Latin" would help. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Correction
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for the correction ([8]). I'm sure I recalled seeing 'was a species' somewhere, but I'm probably wrong. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@Willbb234: It's a little uneven in application and I think there are some quite high-class articles where "was" continues to stick, but consensus amomngs the Tree of Life and Paleo peeps is solidly present tense. Cheers! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Mesua ferrea
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Divyam Seth: the more important reason, which I should have mentioned in my comment, is that we only list common names that are common in international or English usage - this being the English Wikipedia. This restriction applies at least to the lead paragraph; sometimes well-developed articles have an extra section for common names, but if so that should be somewhat encompassing and not just list one random local name. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The advantage of the way it is now is that all the other locations can be linked. I don't feel like making it a Commons file really adds anything helpful, it's not a very long article so I don't agree that it being massive is a problem.★Trekker (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@*Treker: Well, the links are nice. I just feel it overwhelms the article, specifically because there's so little text. But no biggie, I guess. Unrelatedly, can you try and get rid of that "unbreakable space" in ref 3? I can't even locate the bugger. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Just so you know
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I only reverted it to restore the damage done by a IP range. Got nothing to do with me not knowing how to source. I'm sorry if the edits was ultimately wrong but the majority of edits done by this users were and I spent 3 hours reverting all of them to their last state (i.e, like the Holden One Tonne article). --Vauxford (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Vauxford: Yeah, should have checked that, sorry. In any case, this seems better off as a redirect if there still isn't any sourcing after all this time. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Kishor Patil Wikipedia Page
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Elmidae, on response to your comment "notability not demonstrated, redirect to business" on the page Titled ‘Kishor Patil’ (edit page), I conducted a detailed research, Please have a look at it and let me know if you have any comments before making the following content Live on the wikipedia Page.
"He was honored by Maharashtra Corporate Excellence Awards (MAXELL) with Excellence in Entrepreneurship Awards 2014"[Link for your Reference: Winners Published on MaxellFoundation.org - https://www.maxellfoundation.org/winner-14.htm]
KPIT Technologies is a publicly traded company both on NSE and BSE, as such people look up to company's CEO, About Kishor Patil, His achievements, his profile and more, His statements on financial performance are frequently looked up on the internet. [Links for your Reference: Economic Times, Stockinforce.com, BloombergQuint, Equity BullsFinancial Express, Business Standard, and more
There are plenty of sites that have spoken about Kishor Patil on their websites.
I shall be awaiting for your response for another day and then I would like to proceed with populating this content on the Page ‘Kishor Patil’.}
@Nithesh gaikwad: It's a little hard to make out in most cases what references you propose to provide. My impressions here are: one, please not that refernces to other Wikipedia articles are not usable, since we are crowdsourced and thus not a reliable source. Two, the large majority of these seem to either cover the companies and not the person, and thus do not make a case for an article about the person; or consist of the highly promotional back-rubbing and internal tit-for-tat that the "business community" arranges for itself in the form of awards etc., and thus do not constitute independent coverage. In my assessment, there's not a good case for an article about Kishor Patil as sepearate from KPIT Technologies. However, you are of course welcome to create some content (I can't really tell what that would look like), and we shall see how well it measures up against our guidelines :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Help
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, earlier today you edited my page on Redlands Bulldogs football. I totally understand as to why you did it and I was wondering if I could get your help. This was my first edit and I tried to make it similar to a D-1 football teams wiki page but failed. Is there anyway you could help me? Lmh426 (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@Lmh426: The formatting issues you were facing were 1) forgetting to close the infobox with "}}" - easy to fix; and 2) pasting blank references at the end of the article - that requires a little more work to address, specifically an understanding of how referencing with templates works. I suggest you check out Help:Referencing for beginners to that end.
But additionally, the sources you provided do not show that the subject (the club) is WP:NOTABLE enough for us to have an article about it at all. In this case it needs to fulfill the requirements for sports clubs, which in the end comes down to being "generally notable": there must be several items of independent, reliable, in-depth coverage that show that the world has taken note of it in a non-trivial way. What you used as references was primary sources (i.e. published by the club or affiliated bodies itself), which are fine for sourcing details but cannot be used for establishing notability; and several links to Wikipedia, which cannot be used at all, because we are not a reliable source :) (being crowd-sourced) In essence, try to find some third-party coverage about the club - probably newspaper articles are the best bet. It is entirely possible that these do not exist (many clubs of that sort are not notable enough for our purposes), but I couldn't say. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Alright, thank you so much for the help! I’m gonna do more research and try improve my material! Thanks again, I appreciate it! :) Lmh426 (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
May 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Do you have any personal projects or goals you're working towards on Wikipedia?
As I said I like organisation and systems. So I find efforts like the automated taxobox system and {{taxonbar}} appealing. I would like to see more reuse of the major phylogenetic trees on Wikipedia with more use of consensus trees on the higher taxa. Too often they get edited based on one recent report and/or without proper citation. Animals and bilateria are examples where this is a problem.
Towards this I have been working on a system of phylogeny templates that can be reused flexibly. The {{Clade transclude}} template allows selective transclusion, so the phylogenetic trees on one page can be reused with modifications, i.e. can be pruned and grafted, used with or without images, with or without collapsible elements, etc. I have an example for the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification (see {{Phylogeny/APG IV}}) and one for squamates that also includes collapsible elements (see {{Phylogeny/Squamata}}).
A second project is to have a modular reference system for taxonomic resources. I have made some progress along this lines with the {{BioRef}} template. This started off simply as a way of hardlinking to Catalog of Fishes pages and I’ve gradually expanded it to cover other groups (e..g. FishBase, AmphibiaWeb and Amphibian Species of the World, Reptile Database, the Mammalian Diversity Database). The modular nature is still rudimentary and needs a rewrite before it is ready for wider use.
What would surprise your fellow editors to learn about your life off-Wikipedia?
I don’t think there is anything particularly surprising or interesting about my life. I’ve had an academic career as a research scientist but I don't think anyone could guess the area from my Wikipedia edits. I prefer to work on areas where I am learning at the same time. This why I spend more time with neglected topics (e.g. mosses at the moment). I start reading and then find that I’m not getting the information I want.
Anything else you'd like us to know?
My interest in the classification of things goes beyond biology. I am fascinated by mediaeval attempts to classify knowledge, such as Bacon in his The Advancement of Learning and Diderot and d’Alembert in their Encyclopédie. They were trying to come up with a universal scheme of knowledge just as the printing press was allowing greater dissemination of knowledge.
With the internet we are seeing a new revolution in knowledge dissemination. Just look at how we could read research papers on the COVID virus within weeks of its discovery. With an open internet, everyone has access, not just those with the luxury of books at home or good libraries. Sites like the Biodiversity Heritage Library allow you to read old scientific works without having to visit dusty university library stack rooms, while the taxonomic and checklist databases provide instant information on millions of living species. In principle, the whole world can now find out about anything, even if Douglas Adams warned we might be disinclined to do so.
This is why I like Wikipedia, with all its warts, it’s a means of organising the knowledge on the internet. In just two decades it’s become a first stop for knowledge and hopefully a gateway to more specialised sources. Perhaps developing this latter aspect, beyond providing good sources for what we say, is the next challenge for Wikipedia.
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Elmidae,
Your help can make a difference
NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.
Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
Discussions and Resources
A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. While the recent discovery of a paddle-like tail is mentioned, I did not think that it was explored and covered sufficiently enough seeing as how significant the discovery is. As long as it's true, I see no reason why not to add more details in order to record and display more info regarding the Spinosaurus. I think my addition to the article should be restored because it provides supplementary information on an important discovery. What do you think?SBLII (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)SBLII
@SBLII:Spinosaurus is a WP:Good article and there's a very dedicated group of editors who have been grooming even small details over the past few years. Those are the guys who are most likely to have an accurate idea of what should or should not be added at this point. I would therefore suggest bringing this up on the article talk page. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks for the advice :).SBLII (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)SBLII
Moves & redirects
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
When you move a page, could you leave a redirect from the old page to the new one? There were a couple redirects to Many-banded cobra. If you leave a redirect from the old page to the new one, then a bot can change the old redirects to point to the new article (eliminating double redirects).
If there is no redirect left from the move, then the old redirects just get deleted by a bot as broken redirects and they often serve a useful purpose, in this case, to redirect from Paranaja multifasciata and other names. This is only necessary if there are redirects to the old title so you can always check for that first. Thanks! LizRead!Talk! 04:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@Liz: oops - sorry about that one. I intended to do a round robin (with redirect suppression but an eventual target), then realized midway it wasn't necessary from an edit history perspective, and changed to plain move. But still with redirect suppression, which wasn't intended. Thanks for fixing up! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Reverted edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It looks as if 112.133.251.191 has now registered as Kabir06, and is publishing his WP:OR under that name. See Talk:Jacaranda mimosifolia#To add few, where I've given some (hopefully useful) advice. Feel free to add to my attempted explanation of how we work, and encouragement. Narky Blert (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
This just had me rolling ...
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Youch... not sure I wanted to be that pointy. Oh well, I believe Andrew is used to it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
The column you removed from the domesticated animals list...
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Not a *huge* deal that you deleted it, but we had previously left it there to make it easier if we, collectively, decided something needed to move from one list to the other. Now that will be a little trickier, because the tables have different numbers of columns. (I'm the person who originally made the second table, to stop the massive edit wars over whether things like elephants, leopard geckos, et cetera *really* belonged on the page--my reasoning was that, well, anything you can buy, captive bred, at Petsmart is probably at least *something* like domesticated... I mean, crested geckos were once thought *extinct in the wild*, but, again, you can buy one at Petsmart...). I don't know if there's an easy way you could do a "phantom" column or whatever (maybe just put the column back, but with "same" for every entry, and with the header shrunk to tiny text or something), though I suppose since we came up with actual standards for what goes on which list, there hasn't been much movement. Your call, I guess. Tamtrible (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@Tamtrible: Sorry, probably should have checked about that. Hmm. I'd certainly hope we could avoid a column with just doubled-up content; apart from redundancy, that must be confusing for the reader, probably causing the expectation that somewhere in that list there will be different entries here (and there aren't). I'm not concerned about the use of space - that seems to work well with or without the additional column. How about putting it back with normal header and filling it with "-" instead? Also make a short note about it in section lede?
BTW, the state of sourcing in that table is still deplorable. It really gives off a vibe of "presumed correct unless questioned", rather than the expected "leave out unless sourced". I'd like to do a rather strict pruning run there. Check existing refs, then if necessary do a basic search for any or replacement refs - if nothing comes up, out it goes... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
At the very least... it's probably best, should you decide to do that, to mention your proposed deletions on the talk page, then wait a week or so. Edit wars are annoying, and it's a pain to restore entries that were deleted, should a legitimate source be found... And be a little generous for the second table, if I recall correctly the standard we used last time we did a major pruning was that the Wikipedia article for the animal, or some appropriate outside source, mentioned that the animal is routinely kept as a pet, is ranched, is extensively captive bred outside of zoos, or the like. Basically, any solid mention of "Yeah, people keep this animal around and do something with it" is enough to leave it on the second table.
for the column you deleted, filling it with "-" works for me. Might as well have a shrunken header, this table is kind of long, and making the column narrow will leave more space for other columns, which may make them take up fewer lines. Tamtrible (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
June/July 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Delivered on behalf of Enwebb (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll eh
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
fix my problems. Thanks. Starzoner (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
after words from others, I will stop using this production line approach by keeping them out of the mainspace and move to hand wash everything. P.S. I published several pages. Starzoner (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Awards on Hemmersbach
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi @Elmidae: Why did you revert that and return these non-notable awards? The majority of financial growth awards are non-notable. Can you give me a clear explanation why these types of growth award, thatares used universally in western business culture, to bring in funding, and are so generic that there is probably more than 70 of these types of awards in the UK alone, are somehow notable for this article. scope_creepTalk 16:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
@Scope creep: They don't have to be notable. You are mixing up notability and relevance. Notability and the corresponding guidelines only apply to the article subject itself. Quoting from the intro to WP:NOTABILITY: These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list, though notability is commonly used as an inclusion criterion for lists (for example for listing out a school's alumni). Presumably these awards could not sustain their own articles. However, they are unquestionably relevant to the article, since measures of official recognition feature heavily in just about any company/corporate article we have. If you want a sidewise comparison, this is like an author winning a minor literary prize that does not merit an article of its own, but will definitely be mentioned in the biographical article. There really is no good reason to remove this stuff here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I don't necessarily agree with it. The general viewpoint at WP:NPP and WP:AFC is that you improve the article, if it needs work, and its not going back to Afc, you try and remove all the junk out of it, if it presumed notable. Since the likely outcome of the Afd is no-consensus, it would make sense to try and improve it, as you would any other article. To say that it relevant to the article is kind of old idea. If it was at Afc or NPP it would assumed their would be some type of request to copyedit that stuff out. It make no-sense to keep it. In any other instance, even if it was article was sitting for 10 years and it underwent a copyedit, it would be still be removed, as being unfit. scope_creepTalk 16:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
@Scope creep: I agree this is more debatable when it comes to just improving article content, and I'm not about to go to bat for it with any great energy. But please just leave it in until the AfD has finished; removing material that might play a role in evaluation while the AfD is ongoing is not ideal. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
August 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Delivered on behalf of Enwebb (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
“Phantasizing”
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I’m not sure that a debate about calling a koala a “koala bear” (with an Australian, no less) really needed insults. I’m sure we can disagree and debate without resorting to name calling. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
ms pheasant hume
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sir the only that i made was putting mizor....in place of manip....and putting manipur in place of mizor...... . Mentioning this bird as these two state's statebird wasnt dont by me but but deferent editor and erasing it isnt a good step . U can look at mizoram and manipur page in wiki...where the bird is mentioned as their state bird . So i keep this task at your hands. Puipuianunuibuangpuia1 (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
More articles to fix
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
@Chylsee: Yes, they are. So please don't add to the heap by creating articles without suitable sourcing, or adding lots of unsourced material to existing articles. WP:VERIFIABILITY is a basic requirement for articles here, and the encyclopedia gains nothing from content that cannot be verified. Our responsibility to the readers includes not hosting such material in mainspace until it is properly referenced; hence my moving it to draft. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Feng Xiaolian
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Please reconsider the move to draftspace. While it can be better sourced (and I hope to at some point do so), she is clearly a notable person (as a major imperial consort) who should have an article - even if it's treated as a stub. --Nlu (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
@Nlu: clearly no notability concerns, but currently the article is not sourced well enough to sustain more than a stub (at least from what I can figure out). I agree that having such an old article sit in draftspace is not great, but if moved to mainspace again with that sourcing it would really have to be stubbified. Wouldn't it be more useful if you just picked up the sources used in the Baidu article and provided those as references? I can't do that kind of thing with a Chinese wiki article... :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I am just extremely busy right now, but I'll try to find some time to do it... Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Ultragraph C*-algebra
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Elmidae,
I've made some changes to the Ultragraph C*-algebra page, but will continue to make updates and improve the readability. Would you mind putting specific complaints on the talk page giving technical points/places of confusion? This could be as small as "I don't know what X means, can you create a link, or explain what it means". I'm not an expert in C*-algebras, but am able to read the papers defining these objects. Wundzer (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Wundzer: way outside my comfort zone, I'm afraid... I only happened upon the article because I do new page patrol, and perceiving my unfitness to assess the contents, handed the question over to the Maths wikiproject. The rest I shall leave to you people who actually understand what this is about! :) Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
ANI discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I remembered that you frequently voice concerns at AfD about issues going on at this ANI discussion, so I figured I'd alert you to it in case you hadn't see it yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@Kingofaces43: I think I'll sit this one out. I'm annoyed with Andrew's brainstem KEEP votes and the accompanying dumb "rationales", but it doesn't rise to the level of wanting to bar him from AfD entirely, and I do find the current accusations of racism somewhat overblown. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
No worries. To be clear, I intended this more as you being familiar with the sniping, etc. at AfDs in addition to what you mentioned above, but I agree the racism stuff is really more of a distraction. In what you do mention, I'm not really sure how to weight WP:COMPETENCE at AfDs with respect to ANI discussion, but that's also why I stayed away from that in my comments. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Ethnicity and Being Objective
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please be objective in wikipedia, You cant confuse ethnicity with nationality. Just follow the albert einstein wikipedia page where people are not allowed to write german-american, german-swiss and so on he has like 5 citizenship , Just be objective and it is best to write german-born, Nepal-born etc which 100% accurately represents the facts and not ANCESTRY. Tenzings both father and mother were nepalese born so ethnic nepalese. Dr. Bhola Prasad Rauniyar (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Dr. Bhola Prasad Rauniyar: personally I have no interest or specific knowledge about Norgay's nationality or ethnicity (nor do I consider it particularly important). However, I do know that this question has been hashed over many times on the article's talk page and in related fora, and what is in the article right now is the consensus formulation. As a participant in a cooperative project, you cannot override this without discussion; and you definitely are not within your rights to edit-war about it. Since this is a contentious issue, please take it to the talk page (Talk:Tenzing Norgay), make your case there, and come to a solution in concert with other editors. I am going to revert your changes again now. Please do not reinstate them without discussion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Talking to elmidae
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
So have we reached consensus or not, What am i supposed to do more now? How is the consenus reached? Dr. Bhola Prasad Rauniyar (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Lets talk here reply pls o.OYou there?
@Dr. Bhola Prasad Rauniyar: now you wait for other editors to weigh in. There's a fair number of people watching the page [9] so comments are likely to come in; it will probably take a few days at least, though. If after some time consensus among editors is that your arguments are good enough to change the material in the article, the changes can be implemented. If not, the status quo as based on the previous discussions is kept. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh ok thank you, For listening my arguments! Your very kind. I will wait for other people to see that too. Ok good night!
Tityus bahiensis
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
What's wrong with my article? I just added more information and references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickafro-latino (talk • contribs) 04:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Are you really stalking me or were you already the page reviewer of that page too?
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It seems you are obssesed with me and you are stalking me damn are you making this personal? The revert time suggests you just stalked my recent edits by going to my home page to see the recent edits hmmm whats wrong with you? Cant you just move on with life? Stubborn kid Swtadi143 (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
![[3]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Blue_Tailed_Bee_Eater_Portrait.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/SL_Bundala_NP_asv2020-01_img08.jpg){kind=link}