User talk:Snowmanradio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nohat-logo-XI-big-text.png This user is one of the 300 most active Wikipedians.


Contents

Helpful links[edit]

If you need help, check out Getting Help below, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig2.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing!
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Busy[edit]

Let's compare notes on AWB[edit]

I noticed you use AWB a lot.

In an effort to "sharpen the axe", I'm currently learning how to use the external processing feature, and after days tinkering with it, finally got it to cooperate with a perl script. I plan to write that section of the AWB manual once I get up to speed on it, to reduce the learning curve for others.

I'm curious what you've used that feature for. To run articles through an editor? To activate a perl script? To do what?

I noticed your messages in the archives about passing the %%title%% variable as an argument to a script. I find it works if you include it in quotes after the name of the script in the "Arguments/Parameters:" input field. The quotes are necessary to treat compound titles (i.e., titles with more than one word) as a single argument.

I'm interested in learning everything I can about AWB and its behavior and applications, including what scripts people are using the external processing feature for, what problems they've run into, how they solved them, etc. Especially what AWB does in what order and under various circumstances. Anything that will help me write some useful instructions for the manual, including tips and techniques.

By the way, have you figured out how to use plugins, modules, and the database scanner?

I look forward to corresponding with you, if you can find the time. The Transhumanist 20:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I am busy at this time, so I have not got much time for an detailed discussion here now. How much perl do you know? Of course, anyone who knows how to write perl will be able to write their own scripts and also know how to test them. Snowman (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I plan to try passing the argument to the perl script in quotes when I have some spare time. I did quite a lot of testing on this, and came to the conclusion that this AWB function did not work, as least for passing the file name to the perl script. However, if it works, then hope to find this feature useful. Snowman (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I have not used AWB modules or plugins, because the main knowledge of programming is only with perl. Can a plugin be in perl? Snowman (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I have done a variety of tasks with perl scripts to assist AWB to edit Wiki articles. Snowman (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Making use of the argument is easy. Just place it in quotes after the script name in the arguments field in the external processing box in AWB, and then in the script itself assign it to a variable like this:

my $subject = $ARGV[0];

I've tested it by replacing the entire article with it, and again by replacing the first occurrence of "the" with $subject$subject$subject$subject$subject. The changes show up in AWB's diffs display. Works fine.

I've started a library of Perl scripts, but so far there's only one script in it, provided by Rich Farmbrough. The more we share, the richer (in scripts and shared skill) we will all be.

I've also started the WikiProject Perl for a central location to discuss Perl coverage in this encyclopedia and more significantly to discuss and collaborate in the use of Perl to enhance Wikipedia. So far, I've copied Perl-related discussion threads to its talk page.

I'm fairly new to Perl, but have been using regular expressions for quite some time. I got tired of working manually, and decided it's time to take things to the next level. I'll be happy to share my know-how as I acquire it.

I have not used plugins or modules. That's why I asked you about them.  :)

I'm also interested in the variety of tasks you have performed. Please consider sharing your scripts with the rest of the Perl community on Wikipedia.

It has been nice meeting you. Be sure to keep in touch.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 09:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, the regular expressions in AWB are useful. Snowman (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • You are correct about passing the title to the script. Snowman (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Western Jackdaw[edit]

I forgot to ask - I've nominated this at FAC, and forgot that you'd edited this quite a bit. Do you want to be a co-nominator (I guess do you feel yourself involved or invested enough to want to?) Am happy to add you if you do. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, but I am too busy at the monent. Snowman (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: Do you want to do one of those species tables with images for pelican like you did with the lory articles? Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I would think about that, if I had more spare time. Snowman (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)*
Okay, it might be the collaboration for a while so feel free to check when you have more time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: cockatoo[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of cockatoo know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 16, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 16, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

An adult Rose-breasted Cockatoo in Wamboin, Australia

A cockatoo is any of the 21 species belonging to the bird family Cacatuidae. Along with the Psittacoidea (true parrots) and the Strigopoidea (large New Zealand parrots), they make up the parrot order Psittaciformes. Cockatoos are instantly recognisable by their showy crests and curved bills. Their plumage is generally less colourful than that of other parrots, being mainly white, grey, or black, and often with coloured features in the crest, cheeks, or tail. On average they are larger than other parrots. Cockatoos prefer to eat seeds, tubers, corms, fruit, flowers and insects. They often feed in large flocks, particularly when ground-feeding. Cockatoos are monogamous and nest in tree hollows. Some cockatoo species have been adversely affected by habitat loss, particularly from a shortage of suitable nesting hollows after large mature trees are cleared; conversely, some species have adapted well to human changes and are considered agricultural pests. Cockatoos are popular birds in aviculture, but their needs are difficult to cater for. The Cockatiel is the cockatoo species that is easiest to care for and is by far the most frequently kept in captivity. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Energy use[edit]

In the WP:BIRD discussion you compared potential energy with energy output. That's why I said "no engine is 100% efficient"; most fuel-based engines have an efficiency below 25%. To make a valid comparison, you need to know the efficiency of your local energy supply. Even if an energy plant only is able to get e.g. 20% of the potential energy in the fuel (gas, coal, nuclear, etc) into the power grid, they still use 100% of the fuel. Only then is it possible to make the simple comparison of kWh. And this is only part of the picture: Getting the amount of e.g. coal that equals 1 kWh vs. getting the amount of jet fuel that equals 1 kWh doesn't make the same impact on the environment. Regardless, there can be no doubts typical computer use is well below a long-distance flight. But equally there are no doubts that anyone with heavy computer use, long periods on most days, is far from being green. The saying Don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house comes to mind. I only used the clothes dryer as an example because it is one of the absolute highest kWh consumers in a normal home. Absence of a clothes dryer only places heavy computer use even higher on the overall kWh use in a modern home. Regarding google and green: Overall they may belong in the better half of big companies, but they're fooling themselves (or more likely, some readers of the article) if they claim they're really green. Taking the previous quote (underlining mine): "using sustainable resources for a proportion of their energy supply". It is certainly great that they invested almost 1 billion US$ on renewable energy projects, but they're a big company and that only equals 10% of their profit in 2011 alone. Even if a company was close to 100% in so-called sustainable resources, windmills and solar panels don't just magically appear. If placed correctly, they're certainly far better than e.g. a coal plant, but their production isn't impact free. 212.10.92.198 (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Automation[edit]

Hi Snowman: Great to hear you're working on (at least the theoretical aspects of) some automation ideas. And none of us are worried about it maybe taking a while — I think all of us have real-life commitments which keep us from doing as much as quickly as we'd like to! Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. MeegsC | Talk 05:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

To make thinks easier for an automated script, I think the Wiki needs a datebase clean up. It can be difficult for an automated script to compare non-standard common English bird names on the Wiki and non-standard binomial Wiki names and with other websites and databases. Taxonomy differences between websites also make it difficult for an automated script. I think preparation with some manual editing is inevitable. Do you think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Comparison of IOC and Wiki binomial names (June 2012) could be useful to update any Wiki pages? Snowman (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Definitely useful. It'll probably take us a while to research these, and figure out how to treat the differences... MeegsC | Talk 07:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancy report[edit]

Thanks for the bird name discrepancy report. Will be good to double check as I work through. Also, I thought of another abbreviation that you may want to run a report. Mt. versus Mount (I believe we are standardized on Mount)...Pvmoutside (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There are a few with "Mount". I did not find any with "Mt" or "Mt.": Snowman (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Snowman (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The Fauna of British India[edit]

The short title is probably more suitable as some volumes in the series include Pakistan and the long title varies considerable. Also including a title link breaks the url tag of the citation template. So if you are having an AWB rule to replace Fauna of British India -> the long title, it would be much better without the link. Shyamal (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The url works if you click near the arrow. Looking at the Wiki page about the book is a quick way of finding out about the book. Snowman (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Chestnut-capped Brush Finch[edit]

Hello Snowmanradio. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Chestnut-capped Brush Finch, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Check move request. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Cochabamba Mountain Finch[edit]

Hello Snowmanradio. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Cochabamba Mountain Finch, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Check move request. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Scrubbirds[edit]

Snowmanradio: I saw you moved both Noisy and Rufous Scrubbirds. I attempted the same a while ago, but received pushback from the Aussies and they moved it back. I've been tagging the ones I've had pushback with with the IOC exception template. Not sure if that helps you......Pvmoutside (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not know that about the scrubbirds. I know about the shrike tit and I have started a move discussion at Talk:Crested Shrike-tit. Snowman (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I just noticed and came here to mention that to you. I believe that the other articles in question were Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike, Rufous Scrub-bird and Noisy Scrub-bird. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

List of ... bird pages[edit]

So it looks like someone has developed a useful template named onlyinclude which automatically sets the table of contents if a family gets removed or added due to taxonomic changes. Beats typing it in every time, or being frustrated if someone misses one!....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I see that, looks a little tighter, but to me the template is the more efficient way and a space saver on the edit page. Maybe soneone can monkey around with the template to make it appear more compact on the page. Which gets me tofurther thinking, too bad someone can't come up with a way to change genus and species pages, common names, etc. (and higher level taxononmy for that matter)(once there is consensus) so that it doesn't need to be done manually across all pages. Typing Setophaga over and over again for each page borders on the monotonous. Is there no way to automate that on an admin level so it doesn't get out of hand?....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

California Thrasher‎[edit]

Nice photo! Thanks for uploading it. Jim1138 (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

A kind Flickr photographer had licensed it with a Commons-friendly copyright. Flickr is a useful resource that anyone can use. Snowman (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

IUCN links[edit]

The "/0" is not part of an Red List ID, and should not be in citations. Can you stop adding it and remove it from pages that have it? (You added it after I corrected the link at Chestnut Sparrow.) If the Red List changes its link structure, only the {{IUCN}} template should need to be edited to fix links. Thanks, —innotata 15:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, concerning the Red List: if the Red List is cited in the text body, it may be for information not in the current version. Can you check that the current version verifies all content cited to an old version before entirely removing citations to an old version? —innotata 15:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"Vunerable"[edit]

There is no such word. please use "vulnerable" instead. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 06:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

AWB commons bug report[edit]

Please provide more information on your bug report at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#AWB_not_save_edited_files_on_Commons. Thanks Rjwilmsi 12:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Bot task[edit]

Hi Snowman. May I draw your attention to this? I gather you have some bot prowess, and thus might be able to sort out this problem rapidly. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Replied over there. Snowman (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Pelican image comments[edit]

Hi Snowman. The image you added to the Pelican article is a good illustration, but I suspect that the pelicans in it are Great Whites, not Dalmatians which do not occur in Africa. Cheers. Maias (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

With regard to the caption of the other photo you uploaded recently, of Brown Pelican chicks in a ground nest; this species prefers trees to nest in, though will nest on the ground if suitable trees are not available. Maias (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, I should have looked at my "A Field Guide to the Birds of East Africa". Snowman (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is coming to Coventry![edit]

Wikipedia Takes Coventry - You are invited!
Wikipedia Takes Coventry logo.png
On 1 September, Coventry will play host to the first city-wide "Wikipedia Takes..." event in the UK. Attendees will take photos of monuments, structures (and almost anything else!) in the city. Anyone can attend regardless of photography ability or experience with Wikimedia projects. To find out more, register or ask any questions, please visit the event page. We hope you'll join us! Rock drum Ba-dumCrash 17:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Preview[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. --Leyo 15:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

AWB rev8323[edit]

We now provide AWB v. 5.3.1.2 (rev 8323) at http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/ which corrects some critical bugs. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you. I have started to use it. Snowman (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:With the beatles side 1.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:With the beatles side 1.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I have attended to details and edited the file. Snowman (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Nightjar names[edit]

I was hoping you'd say that :-) Well done for answering my question before I'd even asked it. You are welcome to go ahead and do the unique name redirects (the largest section). Are you also able to add a comment to each target article to mention the alternative name and include the Cleere reference, or will that need to be done by hand? SP-KP (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I can use a script to add the alternative common name and the reference to some of the target articles, if the first line of the article is in a standard format, but I am not going to do this today. There are some species pages with several common names redirecting to it. Snowman (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I need help[edit]

File:Innocence of muslims protest map2.png Protest map against the movie around the World Hello.

  • I need help. I have drawn the following map for the article Innocence of Muslims movie. I have made an edit request on section 23, but no-one seems to care. Can you put the image into the article please. Thank you.----Camoka5 (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I have reformatted the map, and please do not change it back again. I do not know anything about this topic, so I decline. You can put the image on the page in a similar what to how you have shown the image on my talk page. I do not know anything about this topic, so I decline.

RSBA[edit]

Hi,

You may be interested in http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/RBSA_Backstage_Pass

Hope to see you there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Q

Chimney Swift[edit]

Thanks for that, I'm not going mad after all (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"Vunerable" again[edit]

I am asking you again not to use "vunerable" in Wikipedia articles. There is no such word. Adding typographical errors to articles is not a constructive way of editing. Please use "vulnerable" instead. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 10:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I note that you have just corrected this typo on Myristica psilocarpa. I have never even edited this page. If your are referring to the typo on this page, may I suggest that you look at the edit history on pages before blaming editors for a "not a constructive way of editing". Snowman (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I was referring to this edit to the Royal Penguin article that was attributed to you and includes "vunerable". If you did not make this edit, I apologize, and wonder what is going wrong with the Wikipedia tracking system. Ground Zero | t 22:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I note that your correction on Royal Penguin was about 10 hours after your first comment on my talk page and about four minutes before your second comment. However, your your correction to Myristica psilocarpa was made directly after your first comment on my page. Snowman (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed after you responded that I had not corrected your typo in the Royal Penguin article, so I did so after responding to your comment. Ground Zero | t 02:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3[edit]

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

Bare-throated Bellbird (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Paraná
Yellow-chinned Spinetail (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Paraná

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I have fixed the two links. Snowman (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikify tag[edit]

Hi there! {{Wikify}} has recently been deprecated in favor of more specific tags, which are listed at Template:Wikify#See_also. When tagging an article that needs more links, for instance, please use {{underlinked}}. Thanks! Guoguo12 (Talk)  21:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The new tags are news to me. Snowman (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Debolding species names[edit]

In this edit of Southern Lapwing, you de-bolded the species name. I support the change but just this is not a change based on consensus (see this discussion for example). I would cease changes of that, especially systematic ones using AWB. This is an issue that I think should be debated to consensus at some point and I think clear and sensible guidelines can be written describing when and when not to bold but it hasn't yet occurred. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

There has been a more up-to-date discussion than the 2009 discussion that you have linked. The consensus is now for an un-emboldened binomial name in brackets. The current guidelines outline how to write the introduction of species pages and my modifications are consistent with this; see Wikipedia:Lead_section#Organisms. I would check up-to-date MoS before commenting on MoS on users talk pages. Snowman (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
That's excellent. I was unaware of the change. Thanks for pointing it out. This lets me fix one of my longest standing pet peeves on Wikipedia, the bold on the scientific name in the blue whale article. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Watch for broken tags[edit]

In this edit of Cedar Waxwing, you introduced a broken ref tag. Please double check your edits when using AWB in the future. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, an accidental typo. Snowman (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Golden-winged Sunbird[edit]

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grey-fronted Quail-Dove, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grey-headed Quail-Dove (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have corrected it. Snowman (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

AWB and dashes[edit]

This edit broke an image link when AWB removed a dash. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

And this one. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Whoops. Thank you for correcting them. AWB could probably highlight changes better. Snowman (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Thanks for those, the unidentified bird is a Black-headed Gull. The duck shots are excellent, if you want to use either of them to illustrate the bird section instead of the existing BHG, that's fine. The Blakeney harbour picture isn't actually part of the reserve, but could be used for Recreation, although I think the seal pic is more appropriate. On my screen, the Peddars way image has quite a bit of white space below, would it be better at the left? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There is the normal amount of white space below the image on my screen. I wonder what others say. Snowman (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Caludon Castle[edit]

Hi. I notice you added a hatnote to that article, referring readers to the school, but are the two really ambiguous? Is anyone who searches for "caludon Castle" likely to be looking for the school? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes definitely. The school is sometimes called just Caludon Castle. I am surprised that you did not know that. Snowman (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spix's Macaw, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Culmen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I have fixed the link. Snowman (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Snowmanradio. You have new messages at Odie5533's talk page.
Message added 05:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Odie5533 (talk) 05:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Picture help[edit]

Hi Snowman: Any chance you can help me out with a photo upload? It's in Flickr, and has the appropriate license for Wikipedia use. It's a flying bird at http://www.flickr.com/photos/29237715@N05/7700754002/. It would be a great addition to the Red-throated Loon article, as it clearly shows how far back the feet are, among other things. Thanks for any help you can give me. MeegsC (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Now at File:Gavia stellata -Iceland -flying-8.jpg on Commons. I did not know where to put it on the species article, which seems rather crowded with images. Snowman (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm hoping to add a bit more about territoriality and breeding, so perhaps I can fit it in at that point. And if not, at least it's at the commons link now. MeegsC (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Snowman. Another request, if you have time: there are two photos of Caribbean Martin (this one and the next photo in the set, of a flying bird) which have the correct licensing for Wikipedia. Currently, we don't have any photos at all of this species. Help appreciated! Thanks, MeegsC (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I have put them both in the short species article. Put any more in a list below: Snowman (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
You're a star! Thanks, Snowman... MeegsC (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Spix's Macaw GA[edit]

Hi! About the Spix's Macaw GA. Sbalfour has not replied since a week. Anyway the article has various issues still. Perhaps this was not suitable for GAN. As you are a major contributor here since its GA review, I wished to have your second opinion about should the article be failed - for you see, I'm not pessimistic, but the article does have too many issues and the nominator long absent. What do you think? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I would say on the GA review page that editing was initially at a good pace until about 27 November when you noticed that the progress slowed. Just in case anyone has become busy in real live, I would say you would close the review and not pass the article for GA status in 7 days time, if progress continues to be slow. This would give all the participants notice of your intention and chance to reply. Snowman (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, then please put the notice soon and let us wait till 15th of this month. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I have made this suggestion on the GA discussion page. Snowman (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Please take care[edit]

Hi Snowmanradio. I've restored the original ordering of sentences in Broad-billed Parrot#Description, because your version:

"The Broad-billed Parrot possessed a crest of feathers on its head. The 1601 Gelderland sketch depicts the crest as a tuft of feathers attached to the front of the head near to the base of the beak.[11] Ridges on the skull indicate that its crest was firmly attached, and that the bird, unlike members of the Cacatuinae subfamily of cockatoos, could not raise or lower it.[3]"

involves a lot of repetition. In sentence 1, the crest of feathers is on its head. In sentence 2, the crest is once again of feathers, and once again on its head, though now attached. In sentence 3, the crest is once again attached. Repeating information to add just a little more in this way can be very off-putting to readers, who can be made to feel that they are assumed to be stupid. In restoring the previous word order, I have tried to incorporate some useful changes you made, incluing cranium -> skull, show -> indicate, use of "tuft".

Also, please could you use the talk page rather than edit summaries for things that may deserve threaded discussion? Your edit summaries at 22:27, 22:29 and 22:32 all deserve discussion, and it is very difficult to pick them up in that form. In reply to those:

  • 22:27: it's not so much a question of what the sketch shows, as what the source states. I cannot access it, but FunkMonk would be able to.
  • 22:29: I don't know about modern Dutch ships, but I don't think the Gelderland had a prefix. Prefixes are more recent than that, aren't they? (Also in England, the Mayflower and Golden Hind don't have prefixes.)
  • 22:32: "If you want to use "cranium" then please name the bones of the cranium?" actually comes across as rather sarcastic, though I'm sure that wasn't your intention. Cranium is really quite a well-known word. Its use doesn't need to be justified by going into details that aren't needed in the article. However, I have retained "skull".

Please note that the article is presently at FAC. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sure that your comments are well indented? However ...: Snowman (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I make every effort to indent well :) --Stfg (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Whoops typo; "intended" not "indented". Snowman (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • A reviewer had not started working on the FAC when I made the edits and I did not want to be the first to add a comment to the FA discussion after the nomination. Sometimes, I find it quicker to use edit summaries to improve an article, when I am working as a team with other editors. It this case, I was hoping that User FunkMonk would follow my suggestions in the edit summaries and edits and together the article would be improved by a combination of his edits and my edits and without prolonged series of time consuming comments on a talk page. The edits to which you are revering to were made late yesterday evening (UK time) and User FunkMonk went off-line. I am hoping that he consider my suggestions soon, but I was expecting him to follow more quickly. In the interim you picked up on some copy-editing. My first edit has an edit summary starting with "Suggestion"; see this edit in anticipation of User FunkMonk considering my edits and edit summaries. Snowman (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
OK. I was confused by the "Suggestion" in that edit summary, as to whether it referred to the edit itself or to the discussion about the bifid tail in the edit summary. Copy editing is the only thing I do on an article like this. You may have noticed that I've left all your changes related to scientific questions untouched. --Stfg (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, I am a stickler with bones. Off course, cranium does have a precise meaning. I think that the anatomy of a bird's cranium in not well known to most readers. Do you know the extent of a birds cranium? I would have thought that the top of the bill would be the birds face and therefore not the cranium, but I am not certain. Snowman (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know its extent, hence I deferred to you on "skull". My only comment was on the edit summary. --Stfg (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I did hesitate with clicking and sending the edit summary off, but in the back of my mind was a wish for precision with bones. Cranium (the flat bones of the skull) might be correct, but I suspect that a bill that big would be fixed to something stronger than a flat bone and I think that the bone near to the beak and under the tuft of feathers is likely to be something more substantial than a flat bone, but I am not certain. Using "cranium" seemed odd to me. Snowman (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that my edit summary with regard "The 1601 Gelderland sketch depicts ..." is appropriate since the article only refers to a sketch and not any text, so the paragraph seems very confusing to me and I have no idea how you can see a bifid tail in the sketch. Snowman (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree, but I don't know what the words in the source say. That's all I was raising. --Stfg (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I do not know what the text in the source says, but the text in the article implies that all those details about the feathers are seen in the drawing, but I looked at the drawing and I did not see a bifid tail or a hint of a bifid tail. I think that User FunkMunk may be able to clarify what is in the source and amend the Wiki article to say that some of the description is found in the text of the source and not in the drawing. Snowman (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I see nothing wrong with making edits to an article when it is at FA. I have often made edits directly to the article to break out of fruitless cycles of discussions. Editors have different things to contribute to articles and one of my contributions is to consider inconsistencies and errors in an article rather than writing perfect English, which I tend to leave to others. I think that you have misunderstood my contributions to this article. In this can you have accepted some of my improvements. Snowman (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
There's no problem editing FAs and FACs, whether the the review has started or not. I only wanted to draw your attention to it, just in case. I don't think I have misunderstood anything. I believe I have accepted all your changes except for the issue of repetition in that paragraph. --Stfg (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You removed a piped wikilink for "crest", which I think is relevant and I have returned it to the article. Snowman (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Apologies, it was an accident that happened while sorting out the repetition problem, not a challenge to the link, which is fine, obviously. --Stfg (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • In the section that you copy-edited, I note that you did not notice the mistake about cockatoos being a subfamiliy, which is old classification. I think that you did a good job on copy-editing the English language, and it is very likely that your copy-editing will be needed again as the article progresses. The Wiki needs editors good with grammar and pros, like yourself. I guess that you could probably go about your copy-editing tasks and explain what you have done with an edit summary and, off course, in most cases the edit itself would be self explanatory. I can see the improvement that you have made without you having to explain how bad my proses was here. Please bear in mind that it can be difficult to grapple with the facts and write it down holistically with perfect prose first time. Snowman (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. The phrase "the Cacatuinae subfamily of cockatoos" can imply that cockatoos are that subfamily or that they have such a subfamily, as if it were written as "the Cacatuinae subfamily of the Cacatuidae". This is really a matter of the science, not the copy editing. Unfortunately, there are very few specialist biologists doing copy editing on Wikipedia; biological FAs would seldom happen without lay copy editors. --Stfg (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Cacatuinae is a subfamily only in modern usage and Cacatuidae is the up-to-date family name. Hence Cacatuinae is now a subset of Cacatuidae, so the modern usage of "the Cacatuinae subfamily of cockatoos" could only imply; "the Cacatuinae subset", which in incorrect according to the text on crests in the Wiki Cockatoo article, a FA. Snowman (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I have informed User FunkMonk of this discussion in the hope that him will gain something from it to improve the article. In case there was any doubt, I have also briefly explained the intention of my edits and edit summaries on the article to him and also that one of my aims was to minimise a protracted discussion about article content on a talk page. Snowman (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Great. --Stfg (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi, thanks for notifying me of the discussion. I think the current version looks fine when it comes to wording and such, but as for the description of the Gelderland sketch, it seems I have forgot to add an important detail, which is what's creating confusion. The paper which mentions the "bifurcated tail" etc. does so based on a study of the pencil lines under the ink. I should of course had added this info from the beginning, so I will do this now. As for prefix for Gelderland, I haven't seen such in the sources. In any case, it would be in Dutch. FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
For Dutch war ships the modern prefix is HNLMS; see Java class cruiser for examples. I have no idea what sort of ship the Gelderland was or if it would have a prefix in 1601. If it did have a Dutch prefix, then I presume that the English Wiki could use the Dutch prefix. Snowman (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Image placement[edit]

Re FunkMonk's request not to alter image placements, please note WP:IMAGELOCATION. --Stfg (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Please reply in the FA discussion and not here. Snowman (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, the FAC review is already getting too much like a talk page. I merely wished to make you aware of this point. It's a MOS detail, so all the FAC regulars already know it. --Stfg (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me for being rather bold on the image rearrangement. I quite enjoy doing the artwork on articles usually with images I have uploaded to Commons or found on Commons. I have read User FunMunk edit summary about his rearrangement of the images. I think his version is probably as good as any and I am glad he considered my version. Snowman (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I always think hard about image placement to get the images to fit what's said in adjacent text, and to not get one side cluttered, or white space. I like the right left alternation layout, instead of for example all images on the right. FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging[edit]

Thanks for flagging those edits you thought might need copy editing. Actually, i check all edits on articles I've copy edited for FAC. Anyway, just to let you know I saw the latest one, and it doesn't need any changes. --Stfg (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at my edits and making improvements. Snowman (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Night vision[edit]

Yes, it's a reasonable size to crop to a usable image, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings![edit]

Christmas lights - 1.jpg

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Another pic[edit]

Hi Snowman: Do you have time to upload a Flickr picture for me? I've been working on the Chimney Swift article and have found a picture of roosting swifts here which would be useful. Thanks for any help you can provide... MeegsC (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I have uploaded the two in the set. Snowman (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
If you have any more suggestions for upload from Flickr, please let me know. Snowman (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Future extinct birds FACs[edit]

Hi, I have a couple of GAs I want to nominate for FAC in the future, and I have a feeling that you'll end up reviewing them, so to spare the trouble, which of the following do you like the most? King Island Emu or Red Rail? The one you choose will be the next FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That is up to you. I am planning a FAR to start on about 28 February 2012 on the Rodrigues Solitaire, mostly because of problems with verification, which I have already raised on the talk page. Snowman (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Well alright. If ever you get a sudden strike of love for either, give me a note. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Issues fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I am also planning a FAR on Dodo owing to problems with verification, which I have mentioned on the article's talk page. Snowman (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Will be fixed too, in the not so far future. No need to waste the time of the already overstretched FAR people. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Death of Hendrix[edit]

Thanks much for your excellent edits. I appreciate your help. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I mostly copy-edited based on facts in the article and read between the lines a little. Snowman (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Great work. This is my first "from scratch" article, so I havn't had much polishing help from others. Thanks again for your edits. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Are you using USA or UK spelling and dates? Snowman (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
US. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks again for all your wonderful edits. The article reads much smoother now and is much improved due to your effort. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Please look at the sources for answers to reviewers queried and suggestions. A depressed mood is not the same as depression. I would have thought that, when a person is brought in dead to an A&E dept, a resuscitation attempt is not attempted unless there is some doubt if the person is dead or not. Snowman (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The issue of depression is now resolved. As far as resuscitation as a typical formality, all I can go by is what the reliable sources say, and Dr Bannister (the attending physician) said: "On admission [Hendrix] was obviously dead. He had no pulse, no heartbeat, and the attempt to resuscitate him was merely a formality." Thanks again for your comments and edits. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The two paragraphs on the post-mortem examination could probably be made into one paragraph, and the findings organised in a slightly more logical sequence. The general nourishment would go earlier, and so on. Shall I have a go? The next paragraph is about the inquest. Snowman (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Absolutely! I would appreciate any copy-edits you make, thanks! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok. Please be ready to fix anything that I break. Snowman (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It is late here now. I will have a look to see what you have made of it tomorrow. Snowman (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks again for the great review and all your excellent edits. The article is much improved due to your effort. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Composite image[edit]

Hi! Would you care to share your opinion about the composite/single infobox image issue here? I would really appreciate it. Thanks! --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the Wikilink was not copied to this page, but I found it anyway. Snowman (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE[edit]

I noticed this edit, however; according to WP:LEADCITE: "Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement", which is why I always include an in-line cite to direct quotes in the lead. Thanks again for all your helpful edits and comments. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I see, it is to support the quotation. I did not know that. Snowman (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Mallard pic[edit]

Hi Snowman. Can you take a look at [File:Anas platyrhynchos male female quadrat.jpg]? Someone has replaced the original featured picture with a new one, which (while nice) is certainly not the featured picture. I don't know how to restore the original version. And presumably the uploader (whom I can't identify, as I can't see anything about the upload in the history) should be notified that this is not acceptable. Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I have reverted the change on Commons as a temporary fix, but the new image of unknown copyright status is still in the file history. The image in the file history would probably need to be removed, so I have asked a Commons administrator about it and I think that he is likely to communicate to the uploader about it. Snowman (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For all your work helping out at the Death of Jimi Hendrix article. Without your edits, the article would not be featured today! Thanks much! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that is a really nice barn star. If you need any copy-editing on post-mortem findings for a Wiki article, please let me know. Snowman (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Fossilized Barnstar.png The Fossilized Barnstar
Though we've had quite some disagreements about subfossil bird articles in the past, I'd like to express that I appreciate the great work you do on the bird project, and I don't mind further, healthy criticism. Keep it up! FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. After a prolonged cold spell here, we have some warmer weather and spring has arrived, so I have been spending more time out-of-doors. I plan to return to extinct animal FAC discussions when I have more computer-time. I have been using a Linux system, but AWB works best on Windows systems, so I have not been able to do any semi-automated edits recently. I also plan to get a Windows system running again to do more script assisted semi-automated tasks. Snowman (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Conor Travers, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages St John’s College and The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I have fixed those issues. Snowman (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Sgt peppers pict.jpg[edit]

I've stumbled across File:Sgt peppers pict.jpg, which you uploaded in 2006. Since this is a photograph of a 2-D copyrighted artwork, I don't think this can be tagged as a "free" image (see commons:Commons:2D copying). Do you agree? -- John of Reading (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Well spotted. I do not know why a bot tagged it for moving to Commons. I think that it is fair use on the Wiki and not a Creative Commons image. Snowman (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sgt peppers pict.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. John of Reading (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the standard notification message, of course, but it does contain some useful links. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Jurong Bird Park Panorail[edit]

Category:Jurong Bird Park Panorail, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I do not mind if it is deleted. There is a cat on Commons with that name. Snowman (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

hey[edit]

Hey Snowman, was just curious what your rationale was for one of your recent edits on Galapagos Mockingbird. Why do you prefer Mimus parvulus -Santiago, Galapagos, Ecuador-8.jpg to Galapagosmockingbird-santa-fe-island.jpg as a main image? I actually thought the latter was pretty good so I was surprised to see it not only replaced but removed from the page. Benjamint 05:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  • The old infobox image looks overexposed to me and I think that the brown objects in the sand are distracting. Further, the old image is licensed with the GNU Free Documentation License (version 1.2 only) is not as user friendly as the multi-licenced new image. Snowman (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • But on the other hand the image you replaced it with is less than half the resolution, and the bird subject itself is less than a quarter, once given a decent crop it would be 500px wide. Additionally the angle is suboptimal showing much less of the bird... the licencing might be more restrictive on the old image but at least the image is itself was usable. Actually I'd like to switch them back, I made an edit to the image addressing your IQ concerns. Keep up the good work though, barely a day has gone by recently when I haven't seen your name in the edit history of a page, you must be very prolific! Benjamint 05:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Picture help 2[edit]

Hi Snowman! Hope all is well at your end. I'm wondering if you can help me with a picture issue. The file Gavia Stellata Ölfusá 20090606.jpg seems to have vanished from Commons. (See Red-throated Loon, and the error message in the taxobox.) When I go to Commons and look for it, I can't see why it was deleted. Can you? I'm wondering if someone has just moved it. MeegsC (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Is was deleted by User:JuTa on Commons. The edit summary says "08:57, 16 June 2013 JuTa (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Gavia Stellata Ölfusá 20090606.jpg (No license since 2010-04-30)". see Commons. I am puzzled that the infobox image did not have a licence on Commons. I wonder if the page was vandalized and key information removed. I expect that User:JuTa would be able to explain. Alternatively, I think that any Commons administrator can visualise deleted pages, so I wonder if User:Jimfbleak will be able to help read the deleted pages and examine the page history. Snowman (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I saw this because this page is watchlisted from previous comments, and it seems the deletion could had been handled better. The user clearly just forgot to add a license, and his other images have this one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eyjafjallaj%C3%B6kull_ash_cloud_20100417.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
If the image is the work of the author, then the author may be willing to add a licence making it feasible for the image to be undeleted ready for the author to add a license. It looks like the deleting administrator is running a bot that deletes images without licences. Snowman (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
It is summer here and I am spending quite a lot of time out of doors. It is likely that I will do more editing in the Winter. Snowman (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I have restored the image and added the license the user has added to all his other images. It seems he is unresponsive. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that un-deleting the image is logical and based on a fair interpretation of the author's likely intentions. I presume that the author forgot to fill in all the fields of the template that he used. I have added the same template that the author used on his other image and added the missing fields of the template, so that the template renders properly and very likely to be to what the author intended. Snowman (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Has the author had any other images deleted owing of the same reason? I note that the author has not edited on Commons for about three years. Snowman (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
His talk page is empty apart form this deletion notice, so I think it's the only case. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Garden Warbler eggs[edit]

They look like Garden Warbler eggs, so I think the description is correct. I don't speak German, but I used Google translate which rendered

Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen
Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen: Wenn Sie das lizenzierte Werk bearbeiten, abwandeln oder als Vorlage für ein neues Werk verwenden, dürfen Sie die neu entstandenen Werke nur unter dieser oder einer zu dieser kompatiblen Lizenz nutzen und weiterverbreiten.

as

"Noncommercial-Share Alike"
"Noncommercial-Share Alike: If you alter, transform, or use as a template for a new plant the licensed work, you may use the resulting work only under the same or a compatible license and distribute this."

This suggests that there may be a potential problem, since there is no reason why German Wikipedia should have the same licensing requirements as en-wiki. I wouldn't take a machine translation as gospel though. Do you know anyone who speaks German?

I have a pdf of Coloured figures of the eggs of British birds by Henry Seebohm which has a Garden Warbler egg on plate 52. The book is 1896, so obviously no problem with copyright. Trouble is that they are life-size, which for this species means very small. If we can't use the German image, do you think it's worth using that? I'll post a link to the book shortly, it will take a little while to upload Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

link to book Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

If the German photograph is non-commercial, then it should not be used on Commons and I think that it would be best to avoid fair use criteria on en Wiki. Snowman (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I can not get the image in the pdf that you linked. Snowman (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
There are four colour plates between pp 208 and 209, plate 52 is the last of those. Or do you mean it isn't rendering correctly? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
No need to use Dropbox as the book is available from the Internet Archive. The Figure is here. The resolution is poor - even the label "Garden Warbler" is somewhat blurred. Aa77zz (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I've downloaded the page from the Internet Archive (as a tarred jpeg2 image - I struggled). I've cropped the page and uploaded a picture of the egg to Commons:

File:Seebohm Garden Warbler egg.jpg | Painting of an egg of the Garden Warbler. The resolution is poor but is it useful? Aa77zz (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that< I'll add it, but no big deal for me if Snowman decides it isn't good enough Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that image looks fine to me. I will endeavour to remove the text from the image soon, but I am busy for almost the whole of rest of the day. Snowman (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

FAC[edit]

Hi Snowman, thanks for your help with the warbler FAC. Next up will be Pacific Swift. It's quite short because there isn't much out there. It will be a few days before I nominate, so if you get the chance to have a look and see if there are any obvious flaws I'd be grateful. No problem if you can't Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This swift does seem less complicated than some species with a great mass of literature about them. The two swift images I added were lucky finds using the search term "bird" on flickr. I am aware that you edit swallow, martin and swift articles and so the images caught my attention. I have not got a lot of time indoors on my computer at the moment, because I am prioritising out-of-doors tasks while the sunny weather here lasts, so my reviewing might be slow with gaps of a few days between comments. I assume slow reviewing is better than no reviewing. If I become really busy, then I would hope to make a brief comment in the FA nomination discussion saying that I have not got time to participate in the discussion any further with a neutral stance to avoid an undue delays in the FA nomination process. Snowman (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
On Commons there are two different swift range maps. Why is this? Snowman (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The original map was made some time ago before Pacific Swift was split, the southern Indian records appear to be wanderers from the Himalayas, now a different species so no longer appropriate. I've kept the breeding ranges of the former subspecies since it seems useful info and shows the overlap with Pacific. Those photos were a good find, I thought I was lucky in finding one that I could use! It will probably be couple of days before I nom the swift anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Challenge (cycle and car)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Challenge (cycle and car) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Little content, not really notable WP:N, one source.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~~ Sintaku Talk 14:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Woodlark[edit]

I am currently working on this article (as you can tell from the under construction tags at the top) so I would appreciate if you could not remove content or add CN templates until I am finished. I welcome you're contribution to the article, but some of your edits are counter productive at this point as I'm either going to have to add the content in again later or remove the templates once what I've sorted the sources. I should be finished in a couple of hours, I'm just reading through a couple of new sources I was sent. --teb00007 TalkContributions 20:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the template (or tag), Template:under construction, welcomes other editors to make edits by saying "You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well". With this invitation in the template in mind, I am puzzled by your comment above. Personally speaking, I have had some good results collaborating with editors when they are editing an article at the same time. I have mainly been doing corrections and tidy up work, as you can see. I have been writing some descriptive edit summaries, which I hope will help you to help you improve the article. I added a cn tag with an edit summary to indicate where some information can not be found in the relevant in-line reference. You are welcome to remove the cn tag when you have a suitable source. Snowman (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The "under construction" template invites edits to the page from other editors, so I think that you have added the wrong template for this situation. What about using template:In use for short periods of intense editing? This template indicates that you are very busy editing and you want to avoid edit conflicts. Snowman (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't very clear (and may have come across as rude, that wasn't my intention). I am glad you're contributing to the article - I would actually like to get it to GA status eventually so the more help the better. It was the sentence in the In culture section that was removed I was referring to as I was writing that section at the time (what was there had been in the article before I arrived, but I had tweaked it a little). I hadn't seen the edits since then, but I have now and you've certainly improved the article. Also, I thought the cn template was in a different place (I thought it was at the distribution and habitat section which I'm also currently writing) but it's justified where it is. Sorry for bothering you, please continue editing the article. Could I ask, though, that you not edit the distribution, food or in culture sections at the moment. I am currently writing those sections. I work in notepad (it's easier to read pdfs or websites at the same time that way) then copy what I've done over to wikipedia, so I might inadvertently undo your work in those sections. --teb00007 TalkContributions 21:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Do not worry about rewriting and copy-editing the amendments that I made to the article. Go ahead and add the line missing from the culture section and amend it to make sense. I like to see logical improvements to articles. It is an interesting point that you raised about the illustration - is it a drawing or a painting? I generally see drawings as a bit sketchy or in black and white, but I am sure that this is an over generalisation. I noticed that the Wiki article on the author says that he is a painter. It is late here, so I will not do much more editing tonight. What is this notepad that you use? Incidentally, one Woodlark territory has been found in Wales in 2006; see RSPB. Snowman (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I use TextPad - it highlights code, making it easier to focus on the text. It's not brilliant (I've not worked out how to customise it to highlight links and templates yet) but it's still useful. I've just reworded that sentence, actually. I found a second source that claims there may have been woodlarks in Scotland in the 18th century so I've added that in. "Illustration" may be a better word to use. Painting and drawing both don't seem to fit to me. Illustration sounds more scientific. We live in the same country, so it's getting pretty late here too. I'm a student, though, with nothing to do until September so the time means little to me. I'll try to finish the sections I'm writing tonight. If you could take a look at them when you've got a chance I'd be grateful. Thanks for the link. My sources are a little dated. --teb00007 TalkContributions 22:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I've not been able to do much on Wikipedia recently because I had an assignment due for summer school. I'm going to try to finish this article off tonight, though, and would like your input if you have a chance. I'll re-add a bit about Burns, highlighting the conflicting sources. --teb00007 TalkContributions 22:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Puffins and things[edit]

Thank you for your detailed work on the Atlantic Puffin FAC and your support after the various improvements had been made.

As I am currently competing in the final round of the WikiCup, the articles I work on tend to be ones that will score a good number of points. Atlantic Puffin was chosen for this reason and more recently, Birth. You have made quite a number of amendments to the latter article. I have put it forward for DYK, for which it should qualify. Would you like me to add your name to the nomination as a joint contributor? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am a bit uneasy about a joint nomination on the "Birth" article. I think that most of my edits on the "Birth" article were quite small amendments of common knowledge in one section and the introduction. Further, I did not contribute to choosing the hook and I am a bit puzzled by some of the article's contents, which I am not familiar with. I would like opt-in one day for another DKY. Snowman (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Re Long-tailed Duck. This duck is colourful and quite rare, but I am not sure what is in the literature to get it to GA. Snowman (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The article is clearly not suitable for DYK as it is too long already. You could try expanding it and see what you could find. I usually go about things the other way round, - I come across an interesting book or article that deals with a subject and start from there. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that it is usual for nominators to thank reviewers on the FAC page, and I would be grateful if you would also add something over there for completion. Snowman (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I do normally, and apologise that in this instance I failed to do so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Frost, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed it. Snowman (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sea[edit]

Please remove your "Split-apart|Humans and the sea" tag from the top of the article Sea. As you well know, the article is currently a Featured Article Candidate and it is a distraction to that process to introduce the split discussion now. You have mentioned the idea of dividing the article in two on several occasions during the FA review and I do not believe anybody else has supported you or agreed with your view that the article is too long. On the contrary, several people have expressed their support for the article as it is, and Hamiltonstone was displeased that the Culture section had been separated off, a thing we specifically did at your request. If the tag remains in place, I will ask a delegate to intervene. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

To balance what you say about splitting off the culture section, User ColonelHenry specifically said that he did not want to see the culture section re-expanded after it was split off. Also, asking about article length on the talk page and using a template on the article page is what the guideline WP:PROSPLIT recommends. I think that this is much better than canvassing an users known tolerant opinion, as you appear to have done in your edit here. Snowman (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the tag. If the article were to be split during the FAC review, the whole review process would be void. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
If split in half, then I am not sure what would become of the current FAC, so I have just asked one of the FA delegates (my previous edit). At this juncture, I would guess that both parts of the article are 90% to 95% up to FA level. I have been meaning to have a look at the content of the "Sea" page in other language Wikis, but I have not put them in a translator yet. I have no idea how the "votes" will finally stack up. If there is a consensus soon, then everyone will have to go with that, and decision making will be out of your hands. It looks like the initial momentum is with one big combined article. If the FAC has to be run again, then I think that FA delegates seem to like most FACs to take at least one month, but I might be wrong. Time marches. Snowman (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Rachel Carson quote[edit]

I have opened a discussion here regarding copyright issue and have flagged it at WT:FAC. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sea FAC[edit]

Thank you for all the work you have put into reviewing Sea at FAC. It is now nearly seven weeks since the article became a candidate and three weeks since you first commented on it. It is the longest standing FAC bar two, out of about fifty. Neither this article, nor any other FA, is ever going to be perfect and it is in any event subject to future alterations. I think you have already picked up most of the serious omissions and some of the things you have recently mentioned are minor alterations that you could make yourself if you chose. I think it is about time that you wound up your review and left it to the delegates to make a decision as to whether the article should become a FA or not. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I am still picking up significant errors. Today, I noticed that meteorite impact into the sea was called a geological event. Note that I am making edits directly to the article that I can easily fix. Some of the new sections have only been reviewed by one or two people. I think that it is highly likely that further work is needed to iron out significant problems. Note that there is on-going discussion on the Sea talk page about Carson's quote. Note that I think that restarting the FAC should be considered by the delegates, because it has been unstable during the FAC with many new sections being added and some of the culture sections being split off. I think that some of the new sections have only been reviewed by one or two people. Snowman (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I addressed your latest batch of errors, such as the meteorite, yesterday. If you are concerned that not enough editors have reviewed the newer sections of the article, we can ask them to take another look. I am absolutely against starting a new review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I have been doing some edits to the article today, but it can be difficult to incorporate amendments into the existing system of in-line references (some of the books are years old), because I do not have access to all of them. You seem to be somewhat amateurish about writing anything technical, but you may like to re-phrase my amendments, because you can apply the English language better than me and probably a lot quicker. Some of the work may more easily be done with edits and re-edits directly to the article and clear edit summaries, rather than long discussions on talk pages. I am not sure what to do about the little-seen new sections. Perhaps, User Chikswick Chap could help. When is he going to be back? This article is probably twice as long as most, so it is not surprising that the FAC is taking longer. Snowman (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
So the process is now over. You put a lot of effort into the review and probably got to know the article better than any of the other reviewers. Thank you for the time you spent on it. Although I did not agree with all of your suggestions, you did pick up some important omissions and as a result the article is more comprehensive than it otherwise would have been. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to second Cwmhiraeth's comment - i didn't agree with all your suggestions but thought the article benefitted from the exceptional breadth of your reviewing. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: sea[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of sea know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 2, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

A wave dashing on the seashore

The sea is the connected body of salty water that covers over 70 percent of the Earth's surface. It moderates the Earth's climate and has important roles in the water, carbon, and nitrogen cycles. It has been travelled since ancient times, while scientific oceanography dates broadly from Captain James Cook's 18th-century voyages. Winds produce waves and surface currents, and deep-sea currents carry cold water to every ocean. Large events such as submarine earthquakes can cause destructive tsunamis. Tides are caused by the rotation of the Earth and the gravitational effects of the Moon and the Sun. A variety of organisms live in the sea's many habitats, from the sunlit surface to the cold, dark abyssal zone, and from the Arctic to colourful tropical coral reefs. Life itself may have started in the sea. The sea provides humans with food including fish and shellfish, and enables trade, travel, mineral extraction, power generation, naval warfare, and leisure, though often at the cost of marine pollution. The sea has been important in human culture since Homer's Odyssey, appearing in literature, mythology, marine art, cinema, theatre, classical music and dream interpretation. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Kotoyuki 2011 Sep.JPG Thrown salt
Thanks for all your input and edits at the salt GAN. The article is much better for it. I hope you'll continue to keep an eye on it. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Mother Carey[edit]

That looks good, shows her, her "chickens" and a sinking ship. If you are pushed for space, the Gorky image could go. Thanks for that, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I will wait until the Commons bots have rotated it before cropping it. The image also shows a cloudy sky and a rough sea, possibly a storm. Snowman (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I rotated it when I cropped it. I have shown it in the article, with a basic caption. I wondered about highlighting in the caption about the ship, the which, chickens and storm. Snowman (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Gorky[edit]

I've responded on my talk page. -- Vmenkov (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Snowman, I want to get this through FAC, and I'm obviously not going to convince you that any of the Gorky/anarchist stuff is relevant to this article, despite the RS reference for Cocker. The only way forward seems to be for me to remove the last three paragraphs of the article as it stands, together with the associated books and references. I can't say I'm happy about this, but one of us has to give ground. However, before taking this drastic step, I want to be sure that this addresses your concerns in full, and isn't just going to start another interminable discussion. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
My main concern with the article is the scope for misunderstanding some of the over simplifications. I do not see this as a case of one of us having to give way, partly because I see the FAC as a drive to improve the article and there are many ways forward. Snowman (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for OED suggestion, I have a library card, but OED website won't accept it. And I can't afford $295! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Fixed, I needed the council's initials too! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The whole number on my card is the login; the first digits apply to the local council and the rest of the number is my own library-card number. Snowman (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

footnote[edit]

Thanks for creating the footnote, I had thought about doing that, but let it slide. In the penultimate paragraph of the section, I wondered if "bird of storm" would be more natural as "storm bird" — what do you think? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

To me, "bird of storm" sounds like it has more of the essence of change, so I think it is much more suitable. I wonder if "bird of storms" fits with the translation. A similar piece on the family page seems to me to be even more metaphysical (that might not be the right word), and explains the analogies used in poetry and to describe Gorgy better. I did not what to adapt anything from the family page for the species page, partly because I do not know the sources used on the family page. Also, I was unsure about asking User Vmenkov to write anything extra for the species page without a consensus on the specifications of what to add. Snowman (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I suspect that "bird of storm" is a literal, rather than natural, translation. I'll change to "storm bird". The family article has plenty of material, but needs a good deal of work to clean up. We both had to put in some effort to clean up the new refs for this article, and the other page has worse problems. Something to sort out if it ever goes to GA/FA. I think this article is fine now, we don't need to delve too far into the metaphysics when the poem and Gorky are both more suitable pages for extended discussion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is too easy to write too much and cover topics which belong elsewhere. If people are interested in the poetry, then they can easily click on the wikilinks and read other pages within the Wikipedia. Snowman (talk) 08:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Follow up[edit]

Following your comments on the Desert talk page I have created a new article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Redback[edit]

I have asked Hamiltonstone to look and have a think about the article as he has been good at objecting if he finds the prose too dry or not engaging, and is an outsider to biology articles. He is Australian though, so he will have some familiarity with them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I have asked an editor to consider the bites section, because I thought he made a good review of the medical aspects of the Salt article. Snowman (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
NB:I think we may have interpreted life cycle of male spiders differently. See Talk:Redback_spider#Reproduction_query Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Crocodilia[edit]

We may nominate Crocodilia for GA soon would you be able to review and prepare it for FA. LittleJerry (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for asking me. I do not know much about the topic, so I do not want to participate extensively in the FA nor GA. Snowman (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I had a look at one section and did some copy-editing, which you may or may not agree with, but it might give you something to think about. I suspect that the other sections need copy-editing as well. What about crocks is zoos and crock displays like this one at Australia Zoo; File:Steve irwin at Australia zoo.jpg. I did not see the word "brain" mentioned - I understand that they have a very small brain, making some of their instinctive behaviours predictable; some species are very aware of animals stumbling, which prompts them to attack. Possible omissions: Foramen of Panizza. Snowman (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Would you be able to copyedit the rest of the article? LittleJerry (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I would rather work on pages that I know a bit more about or on images. Snowman (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay then. LittleJerry (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Redback spider, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Serum and Hyperimmune (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Now fixed. Snowman (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • }}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Whoops. Typo fixed. Snowman (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • The '''Indigo Bunting''' (''Passerina cyanea'') ), is a small [[seed]]-eating [[bird]] in the family [[Cardinalidae]]. It is [[bird migration|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Typo fixed. Snowman (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 17 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Typo fixed. Snowman (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Hooded Parrot[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stub Contest/Entries[edit]

I noticed that you have Nemegt Formation listed 3 times under re-rating. Chris857 (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Well spotted. I have removed the accidental duplication. Snowman (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Wow, you are romping ahead. Just thought I'd point out that quite a few of your pages still have stub tags. Schwede66 05:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I assume that you mean the WP banners on the talk pages. I will look for the WP banners that I have missed and upgrade then. Snowman (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I have made a second edit to a few talk pages, to complete the re-rating. I was doing some tidy up work as well, so the submitted list is only those articles, which I re-rated up from a Stub. Snowman (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | death_place = [[Kensington]])
  • | PLACE OF DEATH = [[Kensington]])

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I have removed the odd bracket. It was there before edited the page. Snowman (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:TAXONORPHAN[edit]

Hi. In case you didn't know yet, please don't add {{orphan}} tags to articles on taxa and organisms per WP:TAXONORPHAN, as you did at Saiphos equalis. By their very nature, they usually can only be linked to one other article.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 22:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Electron Scattering C-Class Upgrade[edit]

Hi Snowmanradio,

Thank you very much for your edits on the Electron scattering article, and for the revised classification. I happen to be a 4th year university student, and upgrading the electron scattering article is part of my project. The goal is simply to improve the article as much as possible, and the quality scale is a good way to measure this. I am not sure if you have any background in the topic, but what advice could you give me to continue to improve the article towards a B or even GA?

The article is still under construction, so I would like to know what you would like to see completed to have it graded to a B-class. Currently I am summarizing the different types of scattering, and have further plans to put into place towards GA later.

Thanks, IndianFace (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The article seems to be in good shape, but it a bit advanced for me, so I do not plan to expand it. Snowman (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: redback spider[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of redback spider know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 19, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 19, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Redback spider

The redback spider is a species of venomous spider indigenous to Australia. It is a member of the cosmopolitan genus Latrodectus, the widow spiders. The adult female has a black body with a prominent abdominal red stripe (pictured). Females have a body length of about 1 centimetre (0.4 in), while the male is much smaller, being only 3–4 mm (0.12–0.16 in) long. Mainly nocturnal, the female redback lives in an untidy web in a warm sheltered location near or inside human residences. It preys on insects, spiders and small vertebrates that become ensnared in its web. Male spiders and spiderlings often live on the periphery of the female spiders' web and steal leftovers. The redback is one of few arachnids which usually display sexual cannibalism while mating. It has a widespread distribution in Australia, and inadvertent introductions have led to established colonies in New Zealand, Japan and in greenhouses in Belgium. The redback is one of the few spider species that can be seriously harmful to humans. An antivenom has been available since 1956, although there are disputes about its effectiveness, and there have been no deaths directly due to redback bites since its introduction. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

Bästa nyskrivna.svg 100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

Bästa nyskrivna.svg This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 19:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

re rate to Redirect using AWB[edit]

Hi, all these talk pages that you are performing the edit "re rate to Redirect using AWB", such as this one - have you checked to see why they are the talk pages of redirects? In the very first case that I saw, it was because the article had been cut-and-paste moved with this edit and this, leaving the talk page alone. These need cleaning up: hopefully, when this is actioned, the talk page will be moved to the correct location, in which case it should no longer be rated as a redirect. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Re Talk:Stewarts Lane TMD. This talk page can be moved and reverted back to the original class and importance. I have just done this on that talk page. Snowman (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Well spotted. I found one other talk page like that in my last 500 edits and I have moved both talk pages to the correct site. I will look for others and fix them. Snowman (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holiday season....[edit]

SantaMartaCarnival2013 24.JPG Cheers, pina coladas all round!
Damn need a few of these after a frenetic year and Xmas. Hope yours is a good one....Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...[edit]

Bolas navideñas.jpg FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

About an image you uploaded to Commons a few years ago...[edit]

Lophocroa leadbeateri -Brookfield Zoo-6.jpg

Hi Snowman, I was just wondering - is this Cookie, do you know? It certainly looks like him - and this would be a better lead image for his article, I think. Thought that it was easier to ask you about it here than on Commons, considering that you're more active on this wiki... Cheers - and season's greetings... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I recall wondering about that when I uploaded the image, but I have no evidence either way. However, he or she does look like Cookie. You could phone the zoo to find out more. I have occasionally phoned UK zoos to find out more about animals seen in flickr photographs. Snowman (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try emailing Brookfield Zoo later on. I think that Cookie was/is their only MM2 - and extremely old birds do tend to get that 'whiskery' look, because their pin feathers start growing to full length without unfurling, but I can't be 100% sure. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I heard back from the zoo - this is definitely Cookie. I've updated the image description on Commons and replaced with old headshot with the new picture in a couple of places. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It is a nice picture and it has more interest value now that you have found out that it is Cookie. Snowman (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Casliber#Deleted user[edit]

January 2014[edit]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

    • Someone had put the infobox on one line making it difficult to edit. I fixed it and I have put each field on a separate line now. Snowman (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{Reflist

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

    • Whoops. Typo now fixed. Snowman (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * {{wikicite

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Whoops, there are many varieties of the sfn references, which have lots of curly brackets. Snowman (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

IUCN2013.2[edit]

I have always been a bit mystified about the IUCN part of the taxobox of articles. In Pristidactylus torquatus I included "| status_system = IUCN2.3 " in the taxobox and the result looks OK. In Darwin's iguana I used "| status_system = IUCN2013.2 " and the result is unsatisfactory. How should I deal with this? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Put "| status_system = IUCN3.1" and you should get the graphic. This works on the bird pages that I have edited. I am not sure if this will work for plants. There are other status systems that might be relevant for some living things. At the present time my semi-automatic script only works for birds. Snowman (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't realise that the status_system was different from the version. I will stick to IUCN3.1 as the status system, especially as I now see that it is mentioned on the IUCN page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The IUCN website is at version 2013.2 and this can go in the IUCN template to render it in the citation. Criteria 3.1 (published in 2001) provides the explanations for the conservation statuses and is written in the taxobox. If you see criteria ver IUCN2.3 in a taxobox, then it is out-of-date. I am only referring to the the bird pages; however, I think that the IUCN species pages should tell you everything that you need to know to complete the IUCN citation and also IUCN fields of the taxobox. Look also for the publication year of the conservation status; for birds this is currently 2012 or 2012 and I have been writing 2012 or 2012 in bird taxoboxes. The publication year might be earlier for some animals. Snowman (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Spix's Macaw article revived[edit]

Hello Snowman,

In Dec. 2012, if you remember, you participated in a GA review with me for Spix's Macaw article. It had numerous problems with referencing and encyclopedic style. I've since put in a ton of work on the required items. I'd be eternally grateful if you could read over the article and give me your input as it now stands. I'm not going to renominate it for GA until there's consensus that it's ready for that. I've notified Sainsf, the reviewer, to get his input also. Thanks,Sbalfour (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I have had a quick look, but I think that I will have a longer look and reply on the article's talk page probably sometime this week. Snowman (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Snowman. I have pointed out some issues on my talkpage. Would you like to have a look at it? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 06:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Snowman! Let's move work onto the Talk page of the article itself now, so we preserve the history of the dialog in one place. Maybe Sainsf can move a copy his/her comments to the page as well. What would you like me to do re: Conservation and Threats/Threats, History and Captive Population seections?Sbalfour (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that the article would be better after checking and copy-editing. Some of the conservation organisations in the table do not have there own Wiki articles, so some new Stubs might help to wikilink in the main text of the article and the table. Similarly, it might be helpful to make Stub articles for some of the people mentioned in the article, if they do not already have there own articles. Presley could also have his own article. The linked articles could reduce the need for some of the details to be kept in the macaw article. I am going to stand back for a while and see what happens to the article. Snowman (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

[Stub Contest] Winner[edit]

Winner deserves this

Congratulations. With a final score of 6,492 points, you won the Stub Contest by over double of second place. You were declared the winner at at the contest talk page. There you can find the info to receiver your €100 voucher for Amazon.com. You did an excellent job and earned it. Mitch32(The man who renounces himself, comes to himself.) 05:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Murder of Daniel Pelka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

Hi. I am conducting a survey of most active Wikipedians, regarding reasons they may reduce their activity. I would be very interested in having you participate in it. Would you be interested? (If you reply to me here, please WP:ECHO me). Thank you for your consideration, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  • For transparency, I have listed the project at [1]. Let me know if there is anything else you need. Not sure what you mean by ethical justification for the survey, but as food for thought, consider the importance of the asked questions for the survival of the Wikipedia community and the fact that answers to said questions cannot be obtained without a survey. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited "David Montgomery (photographer)", you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page "Chelsea" (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, I guessed that Chelsea was the primary topic. I have fixed it now. Snowman (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Blackcap[edit]

Nice pics. On my screen, it doesn't impinge. If there is a problem, my preference would be to make the table narrower and deeper, so that the boring but necessary detail is all together. It would also be possible to put the authority under the subspecies name, which would save a column, but it's not a big deal either way. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks fine on my screen, after I made the table narrower. Snowman (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | SHORT DESCRIPTION = American geologist who specialised in [[glaciology

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Whoops, I accidentally did not copy in the trailing "]]", now fixed. Snowman (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Banded Whiteface[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Caprimulgus_europeus_distr.png[edit]

Hi Snowman. You're more knowledgeable about images than me, and I have a couple of queries about this file. It was uploaded by another user, and has a proper reference, although I can't access that page of Holyoak

  • I'd like to change it to the project's standard colours if there is any easy way to do so. It's too tedious to do it manually. Any ideas, or do I just leave it?
  • The blue stars seem pointless. There is no reason why a silent nocturnal bird couldn't occur anywhere in the general area. Any views?
  • The file name is misspelt. Is it too trivial to justify renaming?
  • I may adapt the map anyway, I don't like to rely on a single map source at any time, especially when I can't see the original book page

Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

New version at File:Caprimulgus europaeus -range map.png. Any comments? Is it the correct shade of blue for the African ranges? Snowman (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I made a new image (with a new name), because the image is shown on dozens of language Wikis, which may have different colour schemes. Snowman (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I hope that the new file name is spelt correctly. Snowman (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I have removed the blue stars and the blue arrow. Snowman (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
That's brilliant! I'll have a look at other sources to see if the map needs adjusting at all, otherwise it's all done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Unbaptised[edit]

Hi Snow, I'm surprised you objected to this; it's in the source, Chambers and the online OED (the latter under the Oxford spelling with -ize). Since the meaning is obvious, I can't see the point of replacing it with a phrase. Would you me happy with unbaptized (although that has the risk of looking like AE)? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It is more of a question than an objection. It is not in the OED as "unbaptised" (as it was spelt in the bird article). It is in the OED as "unbaptized". I am puzzled by this spelling, so I have returned your spelling to the article. Snowman (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Re-think. I think I understand it a bit better now and I think that you are correct using "unbaptised" because it is consistent with the use of "ise" and not "ize" seen in the rest of the article. It is probably worth tagging the article with {{EngvarB}} ( not {{EngvarOx}}) to help people doing semi-automatic edits. Snowman (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Good idea Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

oil droplets[edit]

While I accept what you say as far as it goes, it could well still be the case that the cones in nocturnal birds' eyes has fewer oil droplets. The reference I used said that birds that hunt underwater like auks, or in the air, like swifts and swallows, also lack oil droplets because they would hinder their specialised vision requirements, so it's not just a matter of rods v cones. Leave it with me, I'll look tomorrow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not certain of the exact comparative anatomy, so I will be interested to see your amendments. The A & P may be quite complicated. Nocturnal birds may have more rods and also less oil droplets in cones than daylight birds. Snowman (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Surprising difficult to find reliable sources
  • Burton (reffed in text) says owls and nightjars have few droplets, doesn't mention numbers of cones
  • Holyoak p.67 although nightjars have coloured drops in some of their cones....— this is all I can read, but at least confirms that they have some cones.
  • Roots, Nocturnal animals p.4, "Nightjars and frogmouths have cones, but not enough for colour vision."Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
The Roots ref sounds a bit dogmatic to me, but it might have to be used as such as a RS. Snowman (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I suggest In many diurnal birds, light passes through coloured oil droplets within cone cells to improve their colour vision. however, Nocturnal birds have a much higher density of rod cells, which lack not not have oil drops, and are more sensitive to light.(Burton ref pp. 44/48) The relatively low numbers of cone cells also have few oil droplets(+Burton and Roots refs). What do you think? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Suggestion: The retinas of nocturnal species of birds including nightjars are adapted for sight in low-light levels with a much higher density of rod cells and a fewer cone cells, when compared to that of most diurnal species of birds. In diurnal birds light passes through coloured oil droplets within cone cells to improve colour vision; on the other hand, sparsity of cone cells (some without oil droplets and some with only a few oil droplets) in nightjars suggests that the adaptation towards good night vision has compromised colour vision. Snowman (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
My first sentence seems uncontroversial to me and I presume the general references in the "Bird vision" article will help. The second sentence is harder to write, because of the paucity of information on the topic and I am not sure how much detail to write in. The second sentence may need re-phrasing depending on the requirements of the article and other copy-editing; however, I think I the second sentence does not go beyond what the three references say. I see the Darwinian style for this as just a different and more logical way of writing it and I think that it is not RS. Snowman (talk)
That looks OK, although, as you say, the second sentence needs tweaking. I'll sort out the referencing and have another go later. Any other problems? If not, I'll go through the text a couple more times and then throw it to FAC Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
If you are going straight to FAC, then I might write a few comments on the article's talk page. Snowman (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I've written lots of FAs, and I normally only go to GA (or Milhist "A" review) if it's a different type of article, like Melbourne Castle, where I need to be sure that I know what I'm doing. GA is a bit hit-and-miss, reviews are sometimes insufficiently rigorous to be good preparation for FA, and not all reviewers are aware of the FAC standards. I'll probably go to FAC in the next few days, and obviously I'll mention the help you have given in the preparation of the article. Thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
For balance a little more about the birds in Africa, when it is cold in the north, would help. What they eat there, what African habitats they prefer, their behaviour, African predators, how they get there and back. Snowman (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

In Africa, there are relatively few ornithologists, and a usually silent nocturnal bird is unlikely to attract many observers out into the mosquito and malaria-ridden night. I've mentioned habitat in the text, I haven't found anything specific on food (although it will be similar but with local moths etc) or predators or anything else much apart from what is in the text. I'll see if there is anything on migration that I haven't covered, but for the same reasons, I'm not hopeful Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Added a bit on migration Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Snowmanradio. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds.
Message added 02:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger One ping only 02:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

My new chair[edit]

Hello Snowmanradio, I am sitting comfortably in my brand new executive chair (£36) bought from Amazon with part of my stub contest voucher. Very nice. I hope you have been making use of your new gloves.

Every time I look at my watchlist I see your name. Four times in the past twentyfour hours, you have done something or other to one of the articles I have just been involved with, Blue Wildebeest, Poultry, Osedax japonicus and Rufous-tailed Robin. Its almost as if you were following me around, or perhaps we have similar interests. Do I mind? No, not really, you can do what you like and it doesn't bother me. With regard to the Rufous-tailed Robin article, I chose to expand that article because it was due to be "Today's Featured Picture" on 10th March and was pretty thin. I couldn't find much about the bird online so I included as a reference the blog you disapproved of because it did have a bit of a description of the bird and the author was so enthusiastic about his "mega" day. After I had approached Jimfbleak and he had given me access to more information, I did not really need the blog any more but I left the reference in place anyway. So what? You can remove it if you want. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I have bought a new pair cycling gloves, but I did not get them from Amazon. I have had plenty of opportunities to test them in a variety of weather conditions this winter. You seem to be very quick at writing, but sometimes I think that you have tenancy to have the emphasis or words slightly wrong with your writing about some of the more complex aspects of the basic sciences. As far as I am aware, most of my edits with AWB are uncontroversial and mostly simple tidy up work that would be tedious to do manually. I do lots of edits with AWB and input lots of lists of pages for editing, and I would not spend much time using AWB to edit the pages that you have edited. Many pages are skipped by AWB, because no edits are needed, or I opt to skip pages because the AWB edits are very minor. I mainly edit bird and animal pages; however, I might occasionally focus on a science topic that interests me. The poultry article has an interesting combination of ornithology and basic sciences. I was suspicious of a reference with the title "Punkbirder" in the Rufous-tailed Robin article and I was curious to find out if the reference was RS or not. The other two articles that you referred to needed some simple tidy up work and the pages whizzed through AWB. I recall that beginners on the Wiki are told not to edit the Wiki, if they do not want to see their work re-edited. Snowman (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
That's OK. Does your script tidy up references? I have just approved Mendel L. Peterson for DYK but its references are a mess. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
AWB can tidy up certain formatting problems in references, which can be tedious to do manually. I tried AWB on the new article, but it does not have a built-in facility to tidy up those references. Snowman (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
@Snowmanradio: - I have been meaning to provide feedback to all articles at the Wikipedia:The Core Contest to give people some more encouragement and impetus for the last 48 hours of the contest. I meant to do this earlier but have been busy and am running out of time unfortunately. I note you've read the poultry article and would value some comments at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries. I am trying to be fair and give every contestant some feedback but some are easier than others. If you felt like giving anyone else some that would be a bonus but don't feel pressured at all to do so as we have a few judges this time. It is saturday morning here and I have a backlog of RL chores that other people would be unhappy if I neglected. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I wish that I had bought the book "Encyclopaedia of Chickens" that I saw in a charity shop recently going cheep to help with the poultry article. It might have been sold now, because I only saw it the once. I will have another look for the book the next time I visit that part of town. Presumably, feedback can be provided on article talk pages also. Snowman (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The weather here is like Spring today. I am planning to spend more time out of doors and away from my computer in the warmer weather. Snowman (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
As you say, the weather is much improved (we had 25 inches of rain in January and February). I also plan to sit less in my new chair in front of my computer screen and spend more time out of doors. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Taxoboxes[edit]

There are lots of anomalies in Wikipedia and one of these is taxoboxes not agreeing between related taxons. For example, in the article Termites, I find that an alteration on 30th August 2011 in this edit changed the taxobox from "ordo = Isoptera" to "ordo = Blattodea". This was marked as being a minor edit and there was no explanatory edit summary. Unfortunately it was not followed up by changes to the taxoboxes of other articles in the Category:Termites so you get inconsistencies between articles. I wondered if AWB was suitable for making semi-automated changes to taxoboxes to make them agree. There are 54 articles in the Category:Termites, about half of which include "Blattodea" as the order and half which don't. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

  • The editing part of the task itself looks easy or very easy, but I would need to be sure of my facts on these insects. I would probably do the task with one or two simple regexes, to catch various formatting methods used in taxoboxes (wiki-linked, not wiki-linked, different white space, wrong capitalization). For the small number of pages that need correcting here, it would also be possible copy and paste the corrections on every page and let AWB turn the pages over, but that would not be as much fun as writing regexes. I found one taxobox with "Order: Blattodea and "Infraorder: Isoptera" and I am somewhat unclear about what needs correcting. Can you explain the specifications for the task or point to a list with these insects put in the correct orders and infaorders? What time zone are you in? A series of edits done with AWB seems to be highly visible and AWB operators can get criticized, if something is done constantly wrong on many pages. I do not promote AWB, partly because of the possibility of making a lot of mistakes quickly with AWB and partly because I think that people who are interested in AWB will find there way to it. Snowman (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Some of the articles in the category are correct and others incorrect. Under "A", Amitermitinae and Anacanthotermes are incorrect. There are problems with doing things automatically as the text of the article would need inspection to make sure it correlated with the taxobox. Another thing, one would need to be really sure that "Blattodea" is the currently accepted term. I used the category "Termites" as an example, but there are inconsistencies of this sort all over the place. It is difficult for Wikipedia to keep up when revisions take place and when the scientists themselves disagree on taxonomy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
It is beginning to sound difficult now. Taxonomy of Wiki bird pages are usually updated manually, because each case needs individual erudite consideration of the evidence. Occasionally, a number of species in a genus need a simple update, so I can do them all together. To do anything, I would need a source of up-to-date taxonomy (that includes taxonomy controversies) to use as a "gold standard". Could you fully correct the two articles under A, so that I can see what modifications need doing. Snowman (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I see the edits, but they are unreferenced, so the amendments seem mysterious to me. Generally speaking, I could do those sort of edits in both the taxobox and the main text with a script, but I have not really got any idea of the scale of your task in terms of number of Wiki pages nor number of affected insect families, suborders, or orders. Hence, I can not gauge the complexity of the task nor the length of the scrip at this juncture. Of course, the script would need to have access to relevant reliable data. I wonder if the "gold standard" of insect taxonomy is presented somewhere in a way that is formatted in a regimented way that would permit fully automated analysis by a script. Where is there such a gold standard of insect taxonomy? The script could write in the "gold standard" source as an in-line ref. Could you estimate how many pages you think would need editing? I will think about the task that you are suggesting, but there may be a number other semi-automated tasks that may take priority and have been discussed on the WP Birds talk page a long time ago. I feel more on home ground editing bird pages than insect pages, and I fear that editing on away ground could end up disastrously. Snowman (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Forms of address[edit]

Hi, I realize I pissed you off with my edit summary. So we disagree about something and I might not have expressed myself well. Do you think it would help, or hinder, progress if the person who refuses to speak directly via use of my name or at least the pronoun "you" keeps doing that? I mean, how do you ask the person who used a crummy edit summary to go to WP:THIRD if you can't even say his name? Since the ultimate goal is collaborative encyclopedia building, could we at least talk - either constructively or cussing - directly to each other? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Rather than continue with the ed behavior component of this comment at the project talk page, I thought it would be better to take up here. My view is that being engaged in a content disputes and changing venues without telling the other party might reasonably be expected to make avoidable trouble. Sure it's only an essay and yes, the wikilawyers (not the person who changed venues without telling me) might point out that it relates to noticeboards but still..... see WP:Notification. I appreciate the revisions you made to the Disambig page. They appear to avoid the etymological issue I was instinctively responding to. Next time I run into it, I'll already know the basis for my reaction, so..... thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Atlantic Puffin[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Atlantic Puffin know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 2, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 2, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Atlantic Puffin

The Atlantic Puffin is a species of seabird in the auk family and is the only puffin native to the Atlantic Ocean. It breeds in Iceland, Norway, Greenland, Newfoundland and many North Atlantic islands, and as far south as Maine in the west and the British Isles in the east. It has a black crown and back, pale grey cheek patches and white underparts. Its broad, boldly marked red and black beak and orange legs contrast with its plumage. The Atlantic Puffin spends the autumn and winter in the open ocean of the cold northern seas and returns to coastal areas at the start of the breeding season in late spring. It nests in clifftop colonies, digging a burrow in which a single white egg is laid. After about six weeks, chicks are fully fledged and make their way at night to the sea, not returning to land for several years. Colonies are mostly on islands where there are no terrestrial predators but adult birds and newly fledged chicks are at risk of attacks from the air by gulls and skuas. The Atlantic Puffin's striking appearance, large colourful bill, waddling gait and behaviour have given rise to nicknames such as "clown of the sea" and "sea parrot". It is the official bird symbol for the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Attaboy! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Summer 2014 and busy[edit]

My editor review[edit]

The purpose of an editor review is, in my opinion, to identify an editor's strengths and weaknesses. A number of editors have pointed out articles where I have made errors but it is not the purpose of the review just to find more and more articles to criticise. I accept most of the conclusions of participators in the review - I sometimes make mistakes, I sometimes rely on unreliable sources, I may have relied on medical studies which have since been superseded, I may have jumped to the wrong conclusion because I only have access to an abstract of a paper, etc. Others have called the review a witch-hunt.

I am hoping to bring my editor review to a conclusion soon and have moved your latest paragraph to the section pertaining to your view. The "Are all my articles bad?" section is meant to be for editors to review the articles put forward by me and AfadsBad at the start of the editor review, and not subsequently reviewed by Black Kite. Please post in that section only if you review any of those eleven articles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Re:Editor review[edit]

Hi Snowman, thanks for the note. I am aware of the situation (and have been the target of some mudthrowing in the wider discussion) but have chosen not to engage in the editor review/ANI threads directly for various reasons. I have talked to Cwmhiraeth and other users about the issues involved elsewhere (both recently and over the last year or so). If you (or anyone, really) are interested in my views, I'm more than happy to share them- just ask. J Milburn (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I might ask some time, but not now. Snowman (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I do not want to put the judges under any undue pressure, so I have added this to the editor review; "I think that I have done the responsible thing to inform the three judges of this editor review. If the judges do not want to participate here, then perhaps that is understandable, so do not expect too much.". Snowman (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Message me if you really want to talk about legal use of Wikipedia by lawyers[edit]

Hello. You commented at WikiProject Medicine about lawyers being laughed at for using Wikipedia. There are some people planning a law school study about the use of Wikipedia in court cases, and some instances particularly about new technological crimes in which Wikipedia is cited as the most authoritative available summary of all sources. Perhaps you heard that Wikipedia is cited a bit in medicine. If this is a space in which you want to contribute then ping me and I will keep you informed. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

See the disclaimer link at the bottom of every Wiki article; see Wikipedia:General disclaimer. Snowman (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Clavulanic acid[edit]

Clavulanic acid does not act on the kidneys, but that is not directly relevant. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Editor review[edit]

I have become increasingly troubled by the tone you are taking against User:Cwmhiraeth at her editor review. When you appeared at the wikiproject with your issues about the Birth article, I became even more concerned, as it is clear that your understanding of biology is as plagued with Synth and OR as anything you accuse Cwmhiraeth of doing. For that reason, I suggest that you remove yourself from her editor review because I think at this point your contributions constitute no more than harassment. There are plenty of other people reviewing her work and your comments are approaching hounding. I feel it is better to discuss this at your talk than at the editor review. Montanabw(talk) 01:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Brock reference[edit]

Hi, I've added the (Introduction) page ref and Archive.org URL to the Brock citation on vivisection. Brock was thinking about Book III, Chapter VIII in the text itself. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Anatomy[edit]

Just to let you know that I shall not continue watching Anatomy, or this user page, any more. I do not feel, for what it's worth, that the approach being followed is collegiate. I have no doubt that the article is in far better shape than it was before it was brought to GA, and that the GA reviewer made an honest appraisal of it. The kinds of faults that you have been finding are those that in my opinion could be found in almost every GA on the list. I would ask that you do not post to my talk page, this to remain indefinitely unless I invite you back there; and I shall not post here again. If you have any edits you wish to make to Anatomy, find suitable citations for them, secure the agreement of interested editors, and make them. I wish you well. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Snowman, your sustained harassment of hard working editors has been going on for a long time now. Please stop it. If you think you can improve articles then just improve them. There is no need to gratuitously dance about so conspicuously in attempts to make other editors appear wrong. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Epipelagic, please assume good faith. Snowman has worked collaboratively with many of us. I agree taht the talk page of the articles in question are the best place for further discussion to continue. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Summer 2014[edit]

May 2014[edit]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • a rich blood supply and vascular drainage. Its smooth muscle is innervated by involuntary nerves ([[sympathetic nerve]]s via the [[sympathetic trunk]] and [[parasympathetic nerve]]s via the [[vagus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Editing style[edit]

Snowmanradio, I am unhappy with your editing style on the GAC Esophagus. Please:

  • Do not make major changes to the structure or style of GAC without some form of discussion with editors first
  • Group your edits together and provide appropriate edit summaries. You have made over 31 edits in the past day, many with vague descriptions such as "readability", "emphasis" and no indication of which subsection or part was changed.
  • Ensure that the content you are adding is properly source
  • When editing the lead, ensure the content is sourced within the text of the body

Considerately, --LT910001 (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I think that you nominated the article as a possible GA too soon before it was properly prepared. You should be aware of the weaknesses of the GA process where only one GA reviewer is able to pass an article to GA. Some of my changes were small, but I wrote some longer summaries where it was necessary. The original page organization was abysmal in my opinion and I am surprised that you have criticized me for re-organizing the page. I note that you could not sort out one cn tag and have opted to pick a problem with it. The article is a work in progress and you do not seem to be tolerant of gradual improvements to an article, even if some of the edits were not perfect on first time of writing. You do not own that article. Snowman (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I am happy to collaborate, but not happy that you are making large amounts of changes to an article that is a good article candidate with barely any discussion. You have made 36 edits over 48 hours with barely any form of discussion other than "I think that the article is not ready for GA nomination, so I would suggest withdrawing the current nomination" followed by a list of points that I should change that do not relate to changes you have made. You have not supplied sources to verify your changes and many of your changes are purely stylistic in nature. You have personally attacked my competency as an editor ("It is misleading ambiguities and amateurish style that I am concerned about"). I have posted a list of changes that I have altered and would be happy to discuss them with you. If you are unhappy with the GA process I suggest you take it up at WT:GA. --LT910001 (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "multiple layers of flat cells". Actually the lower levels are cuboidal and the top layer is squamous. Snowman (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "The sympathetic trunk supplies the striated muscle of the upper esophagus and the vagus nerve supplies the smooth muscle of the lower esophagus." Innervation of the oeshopagus is complex, but this is a shocking mistake. Snowman (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Double images are pairs of differently sized images and are not artistically pleasing (on my screen). Snowman (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I note that over the last 48 hrs you have not contributed anything to the article, but I am pleased that you have made some helpful edits today with comments on the article's talk page, which I have replied to. Snowman (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I have commented objectively on what I have seen in the article and this is intended to be helpful. I see no reason for you to interpret this as anything other than constructive and helpful. Snowman (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

medicine has a higher standard[edit]

Thanks for your comments. I made another comment. Getting peer review is never going to happen in wp so disclaimers is the next best thing. Can you help with this? it is the right thing and ethical thing to do. Stephanie Bowman (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

First article has actual gone through formal peer review and should be published and pubmed indexed soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I do not fully understand. Whose first article? Do you mean a Wiki peer review? Snowman (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Cervix[edit]

Thanks for the notification.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

GA conduct[edit]

I have left a note regarding your conduct at the GA review of Cervix here: Talk:Cervix/GA2#Stop --LT910001 (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Nyttend (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Snowmanradio (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I think that there has been a misunderstanding. I have been checking User:Cwmhiraeth edits mostly with quick fixes using AWB and some in more detail. User Cwmhiraeth is aware of this and says that she does not mind. On a different matter, User Cwmhiraeth held an editor review and I made a fair summary, which was mild in comparison with some of the other summaries. I do not want to go into the history behind User Cwmhiraeth's editor review here; however, the discussion there tended to be polarized and any comments or criticisms about any of the participants need to be seen in context. I have been looking at GA's and GA nominations on the topic of anatomy, which is a topic that I have studied, so it is only natural that would wish to comment on these GA's no matter who is the nominator. I have noticed that some of the anatomy articles that have been nominated for GA have some content that in my opinion is amateurish. Nominating a GA is an invitation for reviewers to participate. I have made a list of books that I often use as sources on one of my subpages at User:Snowmanradio/Books. My aim here is to improve the Wiki and it always has been. Snowman (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; block expired. King of ♠ 09:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

User Snowmanradio, I think we have got off on the wrong foot. I assume that you're editing in good faith in order to improve the encyclopedia and I am sure you assume I edit for the same reason. I will continue to take you seriously and try to respond politely in our future interactions. I hope that in return, you moderate your edits during a good article nomination, and show some degree of compromise in future discussions. I am very happy that we have another user who is interested in Anatomy articles. We have currently 5,075 anatomical articles, almost all of which are in need of some major attention. I would encourage you, in addition to engaging in the GANs, to engage in sourced content-space edits to our most popular articles (WP:ANAT500). I wish you a pleasant weekend and look forward to further collaboration. Kindly, --LT910001 (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • The '''pisiform bone''' ({{IPAc-en|'|p|ai|s|i-|f|awr|m}} or {{IPAc-en|'|p|I|z|i-|f|awr|m}}; also called '''pisiforme bone'''

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, I have fixed it now. Snowman (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion[edit]

I don't suppose you much enjoyed being blocked for 48 hours, I know I wouldn't like it. However, I can quite understand and commiserate with User:LT910001 who feels you are following him around and interfering with the articles he has nominated at GAN. I didn't much enjoy it when you did a similar thing to me, nor when you harassed me at my editor review.

So, - what about a change of direction? How would you like to collaborate with me in bringing an article to GA standard? It could be any article you choose, but I would suggest a bird article might be interesting to both of us. It could be something already well developed and well referenced that wants polishing up or it could be something that needs expanding and bringing up to scratch. What do you say? Are you up to the challenge? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The weather is sunny here. I tend to be out-of-doors in good weather and do more editing in the late Autumn and Winter. I would welcome collaboration with you. Ideally this would need to start of with genuine feelings of mutual respect between two Wikipedia champions. I said in your editor review that I admire your determination, and I really do. I think that you are good an the English language, and I think that your set of skills could complement my understanding of concepts in the writing of articles. Snowman (talk) 09:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Your first paragraph seems to me to be include some misunderstandings including profound misunderstandings about my role in your editor review, which I think would be incompatible for an ideal collaboration; nevertheless, I would be willing to discuss my role at your editor review and my role in correcting mistakes in your articles, to help you to understand my point of view better. You should be aware that as a kindness to readers, I had been protecting the Wiki from mistakes that you had put in articles especially those relating to well established science. I can understand how User:AfadsBad feels about your mistakes. Actually, I think that I helped you through your journey in previous WikiCups, by listing your edits in my AWB runs to correct formatting mistakes and looking at a few articles in more detail. Perhaps, it is the more knowledgeable editors that think some of your work has been unworthy of the Wikipedia. If you do not understand AWB, then please let me know. Did you know your limitations before your editor review? With hindsight, is it possible that you can appreciate that I am likely to have helped you to be aware of your limitations? Is it possible that I have helping you to realize that you do not have the correct skill set to write about some aspects complex science? Did you know that some people spend half a lifetime accumulating knowledge about the areas of science they are are qualified to work in? I trust that the work that you are producing now is better. Snowman (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I have also been thinking about collaborating again with User Casliber, as we have similar backgrounds (it takes one to know one). He has got lots of things to do on the Wiki, so collaborating with me might not be relevant to him. I have asked User:Casliber to facilitate here, but I do not know if he will or not. Snowman (talk) 09:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I have been correcting anatomy articles that User:LT910001 has nominated at GAN, and so I do not understand why you describe this as interfering. The current collaboration between you (as GA reviewer) and me (as an editor) is on the Parathyroid article (nominated for GA by User LT910001), so implying that I am interfering there, if that is what you meant to say, is not a good start to a collaboration between you and me. Snowman (talk) 09:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I meant that User:LT910001 considered you were interfering not that I did. I am giving you the opportunity to make changes to the parathyroid article before I close the GA review. My offer of collaboration on an article still stands. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I have put a strike above, because I have accidentally misread the relevant part of your comment. Snowman (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I was alerted to this - it has been a busy weekend for me (long weekend here in Australia). I haven't looked in detail at the anatomical articles being put up at GAN. I became disheartened at anatomy as the scope is potentially huge and we had yet to come to an agreement on the interface with histology for one. I feel working on smaller articles and getting a good game plan and gaining with confidence is good - for instance I started on small constellations before moving to bigger ones as it becomes tricky to figure what to keep in and what to leave out and at the same time avoid the article looking listy. I also concede that medical articles are much trickier than some of the straight biology articles - I've been tripped up at FAC both with Major depressive disorder and with redback spider and would like to do a better job before it all comes out at FAC next time. Snowman I think your dedication to fidelity of sources is good, and that would also work well with me and doing more medical articles. I am a bit busy at present, but have been meaning to do some more medical stuff. was also trying to think of a more modest anatomical article (maybe skull?). I will try and look at parathyroid too.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not in a hurry. I would like to gradually prepare a productive editing environment by the Autumn, when we get more rain here and when I tend to spend more time on the Wiki. The scope of the "Anatomy" article is vast and I think that makes writing there problematic. "Skull" is quite complex, is it not? I plan to do a bit more work on the parathyroid gland this week. Snowman (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parathyroid gland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oxyphil cell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, now fixed. Snowman (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Cuban Macaw second opinion[edit]

Hi, I was asked to get a sort of second opinion on the Cuban macaw article before submitting it to FA. So if you're up to it, it would be appreciated. I think your opinion is usually quite a bit more challenging than that of most other editors, so I thought you would be a good choice... FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I have made some suggestions. Please look at my edit summaries. I have put in an extra line sourced from my secondhand 1980 version of Fuller's book on "Extinct birds". I did not want to use this as a ref, because the 2000 version is currently a ref. I am sure that you could find an suitable in-line ref for the extra line, if you want to keep it or modify my extra line. Snowman (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I've "retooled" the line, since what can be said for the red macaws goes for pretty much all the Caribbean macaws. FunkMonk (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for asking me to look at the article. I like that article, but it is a sad story. I will have another look at it in about a weeks time. Snowman (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking it up! Seems it is already doing well at the FAC... FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Reverts[edit]

We are each at maybe three reverts depending on how one counts them. Lets discuss on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Your attention is needed regarding this issue [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I would be grateful if User:Jmh649 corrected his comment on my talk page above, because he has miscounted the number of reverts and edits I have done to this line within the last 24 hours. I have made one revert and one constructive edit to the line in the last 24 hours. The word combat had been on the page since 11 June 2014 added by this edit of mine. Snowman (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Snowman I would just drop or close this topic and focus on the text. See my comment over there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Poultry[edit]