User talk:DrChrissy

Push to talk

If you leave a message here, I will normally reply here unless you ask me to reply elsewhere

Archives
to Jun 2013

Dispute resolution of your conflict of interests, ownership and original research on Marian Dawkins

There is a dispute-resolution case about your on the noticeboard 124.168.48.21 (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment

I pulled that quote straight from that article that I cited. I didnt write it but I can edit it and make it sound better. I believe that the writer of the article that I cited quoted something. Im not sure how you cite a cite a cite if you know what I mean. Thanks for the heads up Ill take a look at it. GLKeepr1 (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you Dr. Crissy for helping me edit my animal cognition artical! I will be making more edits as the weeks go by so if you could watch over the artical for me and "take me under your wing" per say that would be AMAZING! thank you again!GLKeepr1 (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Thanks all for the positive feedback - much appreciated DrChrissy (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I just read your article on feather pecking. Magnificent work. You have done everything right. Keep at it! DS (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Despite the use of italics, he's not being sarcastic ;p. Thanks for the great article, and I hope you stick around. If you've got any questions or issues, just poke me on my talkpage. Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Ironholds (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		All I can say (apart from welcome) is very well done, and please accept this silly award we give eachother here Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I stumbled across Pain in invertebrates while lurking at the help desk. I very much appreciate the obvious amount of time and effort you put into that. Very interesting article. --The sockpuppet of happiness (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest. It started as an article I was going to publish in a science journal but someone else working in the area beat me to it! Seemed a shame for many hours of work to not see the light of day in one way or another. Thanks for the compliment. DrChrissy (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for the fine job you made writing Pain in invertebrates --Epipelagic (talk) 07:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - much appreciatedDrChrissy (talk) 10:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This might interest you

We are discussing at Talk:Pain#this_article_is_biased_towards_humans how the Wikipedia article Pain should deal with pain in other species. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't be put off by the disjointed and sometimes blunt nature of discussion here. And don't be afraid to make significant changes to articles - or too upset if others disagree. This process usually, ultimately, results in an article most editors can agree with or at least live with. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I'm well aware that I'm dealing with people from different countries and cultures, and who might have very different beliefs and backgrounds, and who also have different styles of writing. Having worked in animal welfare for 20 years, I'm also aware that the topic of pain in animals is such a tricky one because it can not be proved one way or the other. So, thanks very much for the encouragement...I'll summon up the nerve to make some significant edits in the future, and tell them you told me to do these  ;-) DrChrissy (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Fauna Barnstar
		Thanks for contributing to the pain in animals article and writing pain in invertebrates! They're very important topics and I'm glad to see them elaborated. Keep up the great work. InverseHypercube 20:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! DrChrissy (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi DrChrissy,

I was delighted when a friend pointed me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_invertebrates, because it's the Wikipedia page I've wanted to see for a long time!

I'm the author of http://www.utilitarian-essays.com/insect-pain.html, and the possibility of insect suffering is one of the things I care about most. From your other article contributions, I can see you share my interest in animal welfare of all sorts.

If you're ever interested, I would be glad to talk further by email. You can send a message using the "My email" link on http://www.utilitarian-essays.com/.

It's no problem if you're too busy to write. Either way, I want to say "thank you" for all your amazing contributions.

Alan

Alan Dawrst (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for editing the page on Gallus Gallus Domesticus, I appreciate it! AvesDiscoveries (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you create a Poultry farming by country article

Based on you editing history I think you are a good candidate for creating a Poultry farming by country article. It is a gap in the list of articles that WP should have. Are you use for it? I may be able to help. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you from your comments on the talk page on "debeaking"

I'm well aware of both terms, as I have inlaws that own farms. It seems to be an educational issue AND a media issue. US media will get FAR more attention with "debeaking" than with "beak trimming". That said, I have some thoughts, which were influenced by comments made by both the better educated inlaws and the lesser educated inlaws, as BOTH have extensive poultry experience in a free range environment. In an intensive environment, would it be effective (OK, it'll require an experiment) to filter the ambient light to remove the ability to see red, rather than trim beaks? That would influence the industry in a positive way, as less labor would be involved. Your thoughts?Wzrd1 (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The experiments you suggest have already been conducted in a variety of ways and over many years. Hens have been reared under red lights (this removes the ability to see red), and they have also been reared wearing red spectacles (again removing the ability to see red). I am assuming you are thinking beak trimming is related to cannibalistic behaviour and the sight of blood. Beak trimming is usually performed to prevent feather pecking rather than cannibalism, although feather pecking can lead to cannibalism. So, the most effective way to reduce the need for beak trimming is to reduce feather pecking. Feather pecking is caused by having inappropriate foraging opportunities, so the best way to reduce the need for beak trimming is to provide more foraging opportunities. Hope this helps. DrChrissy (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Stress from close confinement does tend to drive aggression, leading to feather pecking. However, I was also considering pecking after a laying hen has a prolapse and the red tissue is pecked.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Most scientists working in this area would not agree with a link between aggression and feather pecking. This is perhaps most easily seen in the areas of the body pecked during these behaviours. During aggression, pecks are directed almost exclusively at the head and back of the neck. Feather pecking can be targeted almost anywhere on the body although the area over the base of the tail is very frequently targetted. Vent pecking is another form of behaviour which is probably motivated by the hens feeding behaviour - they are omnivores and in the wild do eat animal tissue.DrChrissy (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Is "data" necessarily plural?

Howdy. This is as trivial as it gets, but I'm curious why you think "data" is necessarily plural. For example, see here. Personally, I tend to think of data as forming a data set, and as such being singular.--Epipelagic (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hiya. I tend to agree this is rather trivial and perhaps I should not have made the change. As a scientist, I have always been told that 'data' is plural. You are correct that data form a data set, but it is the set that is singular, rather than the numerous pieces of data it contains. I looked at the Merriam Webster reference and this looks like it supports your argument, so my interpreptation is perhaps a rigid use in scientific writing. Happy for you to revert my change if you wish. All the best DrChrissy (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If I can chime in here, what I believe has happened is that once upon a time information was relatively scarce, and a single item of information was called a datum, with the plural being data. But in the modern world information has proliferated to such a degree that most people think of "data" as a mass noun, like "sand" -- a type of noun that does not have a plural. People no longer speak of a datum, they speak of a piece of data, analogous to a grain of sand. I too have been told by my Ph.D. supervisor that data is always plural, but I don't think that accords with modern usage. Looie496 (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You make an excellent point -I shall not write about a sandum ever again  ;-) Thanks for your input.DrChrissy (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your contribution to the article Rodent! Chrisrus (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

X

I chanced the BE parts to AE, and left the AE parts alone. Feel free to change them ALL to BE if you feel so strongly. Gigemag76 (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Idea

Hey, I think it's far past time we expand {{Poultry}} to include the articles not just of species, but of poultry farming and related practices (free range, debeaking, and so on). I can take a first stab at it, but you have edited a lot of these general poultry articles, so I'd love your help. Thanks! Steven Walling • talk 23:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hiya - I would be happy to help on this. As you might have guessed, my knowledge in this area is greatest in behaviour and welfare, but I also know the UK egg layer and broiler systems quite well. All the bestDrChrissy (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I have been working on {{Poultry}} and will forward it to you in a day or so. Thought I would let you know so we don't duplicate effort. DrChrissy (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Broodiness

Hi DrChrissy, thank you for your polite and ethical offer to help with the written English, which indeed, is not my native language. According to your scientific profile, you seem to be the most suitable person to make substantial changes to this article. Do not hesitate to make them. Sorry I have not seen my User page. I am so limited in hours of internet connection that had not enough time to check all the pages. Cacucho (talk) 04:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for accepting my offer of help. I'll make changes in smallish steps so that you can discuss changes you might want to. This is probably best on the Talk:Broodiness page so other editors can follow the changes and discussion. All the best. DrChrissy (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Delayed feathering in chickens

Hi, DrCrissy, you might probably be interest to see my last article on delayed feathering in chickens. --Cacucho (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

About "Broodiness"

Hi. I very sincerely appreciate the improvement you have done to the article "Broodiness". Thanks to you it's now a great article. Please, note that you have a "Disambiguation link notification" to your last edition. Yours, truly --Cacucho (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Glad I could help. I did not change the Disambiguation because I felt it was changing your writing on a technical matter. You might prefer to call it the hypophysis rather than the pituitary gland and I did not feel I should change that. I suggest you use which ever term you prefer and link it as you wish. All the best.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This one might interest you too

Hi. Can I point out m:Wikimedia Medicine? It is a proposed formal corporation, based in New York, with members from all over the world, whose job is to raise and disburse funds, and engage with governments, institutions, non-profits, and other corporations to support the dissemination of free health-related information via Wikipedia or any other means. If you'd like to show your support, please add your name to this list. If you'd like to get involved, join in the conversation at m:Talk:Wikimedia Medicine, your thoughts would be very welcome. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Categories in a sandbox

Hi DrChrissy, I noted that your sandbox was subject to Alan Liefting's purge on categories in the "user space". The primary reason is that when someone clicks on the category link, they shouldn't see sandboxes etc listed alongside mainspace articles. The best way of getting round this in your sandbox is to place a colon before the "Category" and after the [[, such as Category:Dogs. This still appears as a link to the category but won't list the sandbox as a member of the category (and when you're ready to move the page to the mainspace, the preceding colon can be removed). Sorry you were given no real explanation as to why Liefting made the edit he did, but hopefully I've clarified the situation? Feel free to ping me if you'd like any further help with this. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, good luck with your ongoing edits! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge?

Aren't Chicken eyeglasses and Blinders (poultry) the same topic? Steven Walling • talk 21:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

No, not exactly. Chicken eyeglasses are transparent or transluscent; they allow the bird to see ahead although its vision is interfered with. Blinders are totally opaque and prevent the bird from seeing forward. It might be less confusing to have them both in the same article where the difference can be made more clear (no pun intended!). Their intended function of reducing feather pecking and cannibalism is the same, so a merge does make sense. To the best of my knowledge, chicken eyeglasses are no longer used, but blinders are, so this might be the better title of the article if a merge were to occur, or perhaps Chicken blinders and eyeglasses.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Chicken blinders and eyeglasses may be a good idea. I just posted at Talk:Chicken eyeglasses#Removal of merge tag (Clearing things up), and now am reading about this suggestion. Consider removing the merge tags as step one. Then perhaps post at both talk pages proposing the Chicken blinders and eyeglasses plan. Avoiding merge tags for now may be best, as the target is still a redlink. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Poultry

Please don't add "poultry" tags to entire families of birds. For example, of the 300+ Columbidae, I doubt if more than one or two species are farmed, so it's difficult to justify tagging the whole group. On that basis you might as well tag bird, since some birds are poultry Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point, I've added the {{bird}} template since this is effectively an Order. Bit of a cop-out really though since I don't think we have a general template for family level taxa Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Entirely up to you, but I wonder if you've thought about working up pain in invertebrates to a Good or Featured Article? It's a bit different, and would generate plenty of interest. Although FAC in particular is not everyone's idea of a quiet life Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

These are the GA criteria. You need to make sure that everything is referenced to RS sources, shouldn't be a problem since mots of it already is. Note that the OR bit doesn't apply to your peer-reviewed publications. The other criteria are pretty well fulfilled already, although the article needs a little tweaking for prose quality and WP:MOS issues. If you want me to comment at any stage, I'd be happy to do so Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ethology

Glad to see you recently made a separate template for Ethology.
Q--Is the difference between animal behavior and ethology that animal behavior studies a specific species in depth and ethology is the comparative study of animal behavior between species? --e.g. between chimpanzees and bonobos--between various mammals--the similarities and differences between imprinting and attachment (which serve a similar purpose but evolved separately)--does it include evolutionary comparison? such as that human social behavior is built on a mammalian foundation with the addition of a much larger neocortex. My understanding is that Bowlby was seeing existing similarities between primates and humans.--Margaret9mary (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In my experience, the difference between animal behaviour and ethology is rather subtle. I always thought that ethology was the study of animal behaviour in the animal's natural environment. But, the question then arises 'What is the animal's' natural environment?' For a blue whale, this is the ocean and they would only ever be studied there, but for a laboratory rat, the laboratory cage is the 'natural' environment, even though they can be (have been) studied after release in the wild. The same is true for farm animals, etc. The 'naturalness' of this interpretation of 'Ethology' also makes studies conceptually rather limited. If we are wanting to conduct robust, hypothesis-driven research, this is much more easiy done in the artificial laboratory environment. Is this animal behaviour, or, ethology? Furthermore, this 'natural environment' interpretation complicates matters for human ethology...what is the natural environment of humans? I suspect this is not helping you much, but to my mind, there is a difference between animal behaviour studies conducted in a natural environment and those in an artificial environment, without making judgement about the quality or importance of the work.

The GAN Newsletter (November 2012)

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume III, No. 2 – November 2012 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Request for Comment: An RFC about the Backlog Elimination Drives has been started this month. Go and voice your opinions! Featured editorial: A Matter of Time: The Future of Backlog Elimination Drives Project News: Over 345 unreviewed articles, 13 at reassessment Good Articles of the Month GA Task Forces: A calmed GA community awaiting for an RFC Member News: 223 members of the GA Wikiproject Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 November 2012

Elephant

Thanks for your interest in the article, but when your adding in a source, please make it consistant with the others; no "and" inbetween authors and use a citation template. The new source you added didn't work with a template so I removed it. Your welcome to add it back if you can make it work. LittleJerry (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Elephant again

It seems the information you added is too techinical and needs to be put in layman's terms. I checked your sources and found that you either directly copied from them or did close paraphrasing. This is detrimental to it reaching FA status (I learned that the hard way). I would also like to know how my edits make the text "inaccurate". LittleJerry (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (December 2012)

|} |- |

In This Issue
Featured editorial: "Drive-By Reviews": A Retrospective About Reviews During Backlog Drives Project News: A backlog elimination drive is being held now at GAN.	Good Articles of the Month: Our picks for November, 150+ promotions. GA Task Forces: Results from the Backlog Elimination RfC Member News: 227 members of WikiProject Good Articles and counting

---

• Read this newsletter
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 December 2012

|}

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (January 2013)

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume IV, No. 1 – January 2013 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Featured editorial: Skyfall by Hahc21. Project News: A record, and issue and a future. Good Articles of the Month: See which articles were picked this year of records: 190 articles passed in December! GA Task Forces: Results from the drive Member News: Two crucial users leave the project Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 3 January 2012

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Elephant euthanasia

Hello, will you please update the status of the euthanasia decision when the decision is made? Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - February 2013

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume IV, No. 2 – February 2013 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Featured editorial: Time to make a Sweep by Hahc21. Project News: Several proposals are currently ongoin at the project, including two requests for comment. Good Articles of the Month: See which articles were picked this year of records: 282 articles passed in January! GA Task Forces: Some minor notes this month Member News: Member news Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 12 February 2012

Good Article Nominations Request For Comment

A 'Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can) here. At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support. If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread. Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal.

See also...

Hi DrChrissy,

I see you've been putting up a lot of See alsos. I do rather abominate the things - they are cruft magnets, and on the whole one has to wonder what they are for. Either they name real and good connections between one article and another -- in which case they should be included as bluelinks in actual text in the article, along with a decent citation -- or they aren't, and they shouldn't be there. No?

As for "deception", it's an awkward (and controversial, arguably actually wrong) title as animals are not intentionally deceiving, except perhaps for a few primates (one species in particular accounts for nearly all of that...); and if we're talking trickery without conscious intent, well, we have articles on mimicry, threat, deimatic bluff, camouflage etc etc. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap. I'm not exactly sure how I should respond to this. First, you may "obiminate" the See also sections, but they exist, they are promoted by Wikipedia and many editors contribute to them. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. I usually add a See also only if the article has not been linked in the main text and I believe there is a strong connection between the articles: I don't believe if the See also link is to another Wikipedia article it requires a citation - or am I wrong?

If there is a See also list then of course there's no citation. But as I said above, the (much) better alternative is a stated and cited connection in the article text. Why is it better? There are two solid reasons. Because it shows what the relationship is; and a pressure (from other editors, ahem) to write-and-cite helps to prevent link-spamming for dodgy purposes like driving traffic to commercially-inspired articles, which obviously deception isn't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I wrote the article because for a layperson with an interest in deception in animals, they are unlikely to look up articles on "mimicry, threat, deimatic bluff, camouflage etc etc.". which are quite technical terms and the articles sometimes do not even use the word deception. I felt that an article which encompasses all these would be informative and helpful. As for whether deception in animals is intentional or not, I think I make it clear in the introduction that most scientists (including myself) usually attribute a less advanced form of cognition. The definition I chose does not attribute any intentionality. Even the primate examples you mention rely on the primates having a theory of mind, something of which I remain to be convinced. I'm sorry you did not like the article - I thoroughly enjoyed researching and writing it. If you have further concerns, please could I suggest these are posted to the article's Talk page so that other editors will be aware of your concerns.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Mmm. Before we go there let me say one thing here. My concern is that as commonly understood, deception implies intention; and this is so uncomfortable that biologists have gone a long way to use other words to avoid the implication (yeah, we can discuss teleology on the talk page, it's fine in evo, sure); and this leads to the feeling that the article is a construction, WP:OR, a strange and misleading wiki-phrase, but it means that the article is building something that is a theory. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. (sorry to go on) - the primate is mainly H. sapiens, I mean, and as you say quite doubtfully any of the others ... as for 'not liking', you're ahead of me there ... I went for a long walk to reflect on that, and clearly the answer is, it's not a relevant concern for the article, but being soundly rooted in sources certainly is, so I've put a note on the article's talk page which I hope is clear and constructive. Happy to discuss. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Research

Hi, before adding categories to an article, could you perhaps first have a look at the cat to see what it contains? Ethogram obviously is not the kind of thing that goes into "Research", otherwise we could categorize every article in, say, the WikiProject Neuroscience as "Research". Or what about Western blot, for example? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Re yoour message on my talk page: As soon as it was clear that you didn't understand why I reverted, I explained here. Have you looked at the research cat? It's a bit of a mess and contains several inappropriate entries (but that is n ot a reason to add even more), but it is for general things like research design, the Haldane principle, and Lab notebook. It is not for every method that is used in research (like the Western blot referred to above). There's a whole separate category tree for "research methods" and perhaps ethogram could have a place there, but not in the top cat. --Randykitty (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Chickens

I didn't reply to all of your questions in regards to chicken’s intelligence because apparently the comments cannot be removed and I wanted to make sure to get my point across. I completely agree with what you say that intelligence depends of what is being tested or what questions we ask. Life on earth could be better for everyone if we only knew which questions to ask. For example: ‘is Kim kardashian gaining weight?’ – That question is not helping anyone. I have a question which might sound stupid. The question is: who should write a Wiki page on chickens – humans, or chickens? If humans will write a wiki page on chickens they’ll portray them as food. Now, if I was a chicken I would not like to have my predator write a wiki page about me. So, if chickens are not able to write, maybe a person who is concerned for their welfare should be writing their wiki page. Let’s look at this wiki sentence, for example:”More than 50 billion chickens are reared annually as a source of food, for both their meat and their eggs.” “Rear” means raised, cared for, but in order for a chicken to end up on someone plate it needed to be killed. And if someone is killed intentionally that is called murder.--Jane955 (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You raise a very good point about who should write articles, or perhaps this should be who should write aspects of articles. My own opinion is that for each of the animals we use for food, feathers or fur, there should be an article page on the animal itself, and a seperate article on uses of the animal. So, we would have one article on "chickens" and another on "chickens as food". These could be written by different people. It is impossible and wrong to ignore our uses of animals, but I feel that writing articles on the animals themselves rather than as a utility would raise our respect for them, simply rather than seeing them as a piece of meat in a polystyrene tray in a supermarket freezer. Hope this helps.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

croc-gallery

yes, you're right. the gallery should be at the end of an article. but this is a species menu rather than a general gallery, that is why its at the top. :) Berkserker (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

maybe the title should be renamed or included in a general evolution section, this way we would eliminate that misconception. Berkserker (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I really don't feel strongly about this, but it is the first page I think I have seen with so many pictures of different species. I think Wikipedia is rather against these types of galleries, but as someone interested in animals, I think they are great! I suggested the move so that some beligerent editor did not wade in and delete the whole lot on the basis they were in the "wrong" place! All the best__DrChrissy (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

ok, thanks :) As in other pages like sea turtles, rhinos, tiger etc, it would be better to include the pictures in a species/evolution section. that was my main intent though, that the section would grow in time. I immediately put the pictures to clarify the disambiguation around the word "crocodile" since anybody reading the article may assume the article is about a single species. it is usually in favor of the larger crocs such as the nile and saltwater crocs. I wanted to point out that in fact it was a general article, that for more specific go info here are the links. when I have more time I'll try to find a solution that suits the general expectations :) Berkserker (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I made some changes to the section, what do you think :) Berkserker (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks great! Superb work!__DrChrissy (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the great contribution to the senses section :) the article is finally getting the attention it deserves after all these years. Berkserker (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed my sandbox! Thanks

no more ethology category Othermikesmith (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Begging behavior in birds

Nice work on the article there, thank you! --j⚛e decker^talk 21:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks!__DrChrissy (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you for respecting the 3rd opinion at Beard even though you had a different point of view. We disagreed on this topic but I respect your good faith contributions and look forward to working together in the future. Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 21:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Old post about animal welfare

Hi DrChrissy,

I've just seen your post at Talk:Animal welfare#Opening sentences and responded there. I thought I should let you know here since your post has been lying unanswered since March.

Yaris678 (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parthenogenesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Decapod (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) 10:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Tool use by the Goffin/Tanimbar Corella?

Hey Chrissy - I notice that you're currently working on the Tool use by animals article... I was just wondering if you'd heard anything about this article, and whether it was relevant to the aforementioned article (would such object manipulation be considered tool use)? It's been reported in the news in recent weeks, so you may have read about it. Just a thought. I already added a mention of it to the Tanimbar Corella article. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I had not heard of this article so thanks for letting me know about it. You've raised an interesting question I have been thinking about regarding tool use, that is, should we consider animals under experimental conditions manipulating man-made aspects of the environment as tool use. I'm not so sure we should. Countless animal species under a multitude of conditions have been used in operant learning studies, by pressing buttons or switches, pulling chains, pushing doors, etc. but would we consider these as tool use? I think the Tanimbar Corella study falls into this category as the locks are man-made devices. The Tool use by animals article starts with three definitions, one relating to "an object carried or maintained for future use" and another to "An object that has been modified to fit a purpose". Whilst these are far from perfect, I think they would preclude the Corrella study. However, it is a very interesting example of problem solving (perhaps object use) and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. (forgot to sign!)__DrChrissy (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I've just realized that a more relevant earlier paper by the same researchers from the Vienna Goffin Lab (yes, that's actually a thing!) was not actually mentioned in the article. This one, I think should definitely be included in there. Video here of the Goffin in question spontaneously making and using tools in order to retrieve a nut positioned outside of the mesh of its aviary... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This example was already in the article but by coincidence, I have just expanded it slightly. I do know of the laboratory - I have colleagues who have worked there!__DrChrissy (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

There are worse jobs to have than 'Goffin wrangler', I think. :) You know, it wouldn't surprise me if pet cockies have been doing this sort of thing for years in people's front rooms - but that no-one considered the behaviour to be anything worth reporting or discussing. I know that this was the case when science started paying attention to those dancing cockatoos... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

There are many examples of domestic pets or livestock performing tasks similar to more "sexy" animals such as chimpanzees or dolphins, but they often remain unexplored or unreported. I have two cats, one of which has learned to leap up and open door handles - presumably by observational learning and stimulus enhancement, i.e. watching me turn the door handle. Just last night, I was watching one of those home-video programmes and there was a video of a cow that had learnt to open 2 bolts on its enclosure gate using its tongue. It might only be 2 locks compared to the 5 of the cockatoos, but it is still quite impressive.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

A few years ago, I remember someone once saying on a parrot forum that their macaw had figured out how to put a key in a padlock and turn it, in order to escape from its cage. Originally the owner had (IIRC) just left the key hanging by a string from the cage door for convenience, figuring that the bird would never be able to understand the concept of taking that and using it to open the lock... No video, but it wouldn't surprise me if it happened just like the person said. Also, I really do hope that I live long enough to see a pet parrot opening up a combination lock. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Knowing the curiosity of parrots, I wouldn't be surprised by that. I imagine the parrot could learn the task by itself using trial-and-error, or by using observational learning. As for a combination lock, that could be a different matter. If the parrot was to open it in the same way as humans, it would require number or pattern recognition before manipulation. It would also raise in my mind the possibility of other senses being used. Many locks make a slightly different click when the correct number is engaged. The parrot might be able to hear this or feel it with its tongue. Would be an interesting experiment to design controls for!__DrChrissy (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Tool use in animals

Perhaps some material from Nest-building in primates could be summarised and added as an example of tool use by primates. The orang nest is delightfully well-equipped! AshLin (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for this. It was my intention to add nest construction in the primates section (and others) at a future date, although nest construction as an example of tool use is contested by some.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kiwi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rhea (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) 10:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Animal alternative testing

Hi chrissy, I am still learning my way with the wiki tools, I hope I did not upset you too much and got it right now best frBusquet.francois (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Animal alternative testing

Hi chrissy, I am still learning my way with the wiki tools, I hope I did not upset you too much and got it right now best frBusquet.francois (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't worry, you have not upset me in the slightest - we all had to start from the beginning. I'm still learning something new every day about editing on here.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

A couple of things

I pointed you to m:Wiki Project Med higher up this page. You seem to be a person of better than ordinary sense, so I thought I'd try again and see if membership might interest you.

Also, I noticed on Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Recent_changes a bit of activity on Alternatives to animal testing. Whenever I see an article being worked on by you I feel a bit more secure about this project being in good hands. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Very kind words indeed - much appreciated. I will consider membership of the project although I am not sure how much I will be able to contribute as most of my experience is with (non-human) animals.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It's all medicine in my opinion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Elephant

Please add in the page number for the new source. LittleJerry (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Your recent editing history at Elephant shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. GedUK  11:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Ged UK. I was aware this accusation might be made, however, I have had problems with this editor before. They seem to think they have ownership of the page and will not allow edits to be made which they consider challenging to the article. The editor rarely uses the edit review but simply reverts - this has got so frustrating that in the past I have refused to work on the article. Notwithstanding this, I have recently been discussing the edit on the Talk page so I am not sure why I am accused of an edit war at this moment.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Whiskers

Hello. I didn't notice until after I had made some changes that you had already been working extensively in Whiskers. I treated Whisking in animals as though it was a short amount of text entered from scratch by someone who didn't realize the topic was already covered in Whiskers, and redirected the shorter article to the longer one, after copying in some of the information from it.

If you weren't planning to expand Whisking in animals, then it still seems to me that it didn't need to be freestanding and that Whiskers#Operation is sufficient. However, if you were planning to expand Whisking in animals, then by all means revert my changes and accept my apology for my premature meddling. By the way, I turned the Whisking page, which previously redirected to Whisk, into a disambiguation page with a link that currently points to Whiskers#Operation. If you restore Whisking in animals to a full-fledged article, then that link on the disambiguation page ought to point there instead. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I have always intended to make Whisking in animals a more comprehensive article - I got called away before I could expand it. No problem about the changes you made - considering the brevity of what I uploaded I might have done the same, but please can you restore Whisking in animals so that I can expand the article. Check back in a few days and if we think it should be a sub-section of Whiskers then OK. __DrChrissy (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

corrected typo__DrChrissy (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Animal welfare

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.16.57 (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Late to the party

Hi DrChrissy, sorry to be late to the party, but I commented in your support over on the drama board. Too damn many dramas around wiki lately. Chin up! Feel free to post a quiet diff on my page if you run into troubles like this in the future, I'm usually able to find a posse to gallop over and assist. Montanabw^(talk) 19:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the comment and offer - I will remember that for the future. I found it an amazing experience to encounter someone like that. I thought initially it was just me and my edits being targetted but when the IP turned on other administrators I was absolutely staggered at the lack of civility and outright lying. No harm done here, I've learned a lesson that keeping calm and civil on WP counts for a lot.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

OMG

Cripes, you're right, although I can't believe my eyes! Who would write such a title, which editor/referee did not see this, and which desk editor/corrector at Elsevier let this go through? Sorry about the revert, I Googled and saw it pop up in its previous version, so I thought you had just not corrected everything the IP had done. Should have checked better. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, I just notice the authors are from Down Under, so perhaps this is an Aussie thing, in which case I withdraw my previous comment addressed to the authors/editors/etc... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No Probs. I agree it is a wierd mixture and knowing one of the authors, I suspect it was an editorial decision forced upon them! I have seen both an "s" and "z" used in "organisation" when citing this article and had to go to the original source to clarify. All the best. __DrChrissy (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Water Rail

I was surprised to see your rather prickly message this morning. I had added a link to the caption, which I thought solved the problem, so I removed the tag. Now, I may have been wrong, but I was acting in what I thought was good faith. and I was astonished that you saw it as a criticism of your edit.

I have changed your good faith edit to the egg caption back. AS I understand Mos for captions, you do not state the obvious in a caption, so it's assumed that a picture of a bird on the Water Rail page is that species unless otherwise stated, and an egg is a Water Rail egg. If you feel this is another perceived attack on your good faith or competence, please revert it back, life's too short to edit war over a couple of words. Cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I've just noticed the September 2013 message above, please feel free to revert my egg caption edit, it's not worth a squabble Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I agree it's not worth a squabble over a couple of words. Both these problems seem to be an issue about MOS and whether something is obvious. If we are not to state the obvious, it seems to me rather obvious that the image is an egg so perhaps it should not have a caption at all (light-hearted comment)! More seriously, I have looked at randomly selected bird pages with images of eggs. It seems that the majority (small sample size!) do state the species of the egg e.g. "Emu egg", however, I accept that others do not. The first problem is that although I am an experienced biologist, I did not know what a "nominate subspecies" is. I had to research what the term meant so I placed a clarification tag on the caption in the hope that someone more experienced than me could edit this. But I then found out later that the species was actually named in the article so edited the caption for lay readers and non-taxonomists such as myself. I left the message on your talk page because my clarification tag was removed with no explanation whatsoever. I had spent several minutes trying to improve a wikipedia article only to have this effort reverted without explanation. As you said, not worth a squabble. Keep up the good work.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my original post seemed a bit bitey; I accept that I should have left an edit summary, but I sometimes forget. I think, in fairness, that I didn't just revert your edit, I made a change and removed the tag because i thought I'd solved the problem as I saw it. At FA, where you would expect better adherence to MoS, I think that the majority don't have the species for eggs. I tried to think of some way to flesh out the egg caption, but difficult to know what to put that isn't just telling you what you are seeing. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Apology accepted and thank you for that. I take your point that FAs are probably more adherent to MoS of captions - I guess it is simply that, in my own humble opinion, this aspect of caption style is innappropriate. Captions, I feel, should be self-contained and informative, without being overly long. However, I respect the views of other editors and if this "do not state the obvious" is the convention, then I shall have to learn to live with it, hence I have not edited the caption again.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Cobthorn Trust

I've removed the tag. I'll be honest, I think I was a bit harsh to have tagged it in the first place. It's a pretty good article, within the limitations of the topic. Deb (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Mouse tail

I've been looking for references about the use of the tail for balance but I can't access the two I've found that look useful. Would you happen to have institutional access to this and/or this? Richerman (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your very interesting recent edits. I do have institutional access but I can not retrieve the first of these - possibly my institute does not subscribe to this or I am trying to access it incorrectly. I also can not retrieve the second - possibly due to its age (1925) it has not been scanned. I've conducted a search on various functions of the mouse tail and it reminded me about tail rattling - e.g. see here [1] and here [2]

That's a shame but I've since managed to source some stuff on the tail from google books and added it, but nothing from a reliable source about using it for balance when climbing - although that's obviously of if its main functions. Interestingly, it does talk about tail rattling in the one I used here and they concluded it was a form of aggression. I removed some uncited stuff about the tail earlier but thought I should find some sources and put something back in as the question of what the tail is for seems to crop up a lot on the internet. The answer is always that its for balance but nobody ever seems to realise that its also for thermoregulation. I did work as a university animal technician for almost 40 years but now that I have retired from that I have more time to edit but don't have the institutional access any more. Incidentally, the reason I didn't mention ears for thermoregulation is that it wasn't in the source I used, although they obviously have a role. Richerman (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think tail-rattling is a little complex and we might need to present a balanced view here. Whenever we try to relate a behaviour to dominance, it always depends on how dominance is measured. It is usually based on aggression (because this is convenient), but dominance and aggression are different. My own feeling is that tail-rattling IS related to dominance, although researchers disputing this may not have measured the iologically significant variable, e.g. do they ever measure noise or the intensity of seismic vibration produced by tail-rattling. I'll have a look at the Wiley publication tomorrow. I've had this problem in the past but forgotten how I overcame it.__DrChrissy (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Your query at Talk:Redback spider

The answer is yes :) WP:MEDRS explains how WP:V applies to human health and medical content, in the same way that WP:RS explains how WP:V applies to non-medical, non-health-related content. MEDRS specifically addresses the problem that the laypress frequently gets it wrong. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches may help you understand how to apply MEDRS. On the other hand, since you mostly edit about animals, I'm not sure how applicable MEDRS will be for you-- in the case of the spider, MEDRS came in to play because human health (spider bites) was discussed.

By the way, if you have a journal source and a laypress source discussing that journal source, you can combine them in the cite journal template by using the parameters, laysource, layurl, and laydate. Here's a sample of how that's done:

• Hornig M, Briese T, Buie T; et al. (2008). Cookson, Mark R. (ed.). "Lack of association between measles virus vaccine and autism with enteropathy: a case-control study". PLoS ONE. 3 (9): e3140. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003140. PMC 2526159. PMID 18769550. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Tripoding for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tripoding is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tripoding until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have edited the article fairly savagely, in a desperate attempt to get it kept. Voting is currently running 3 to 1 in favour of deletion, partly because people don't like the article title. If you can add more relevant material backed by reliable (book or journal) sources, that would be great. Also, I deleted some images of squirrels and monkeys. If you have reliable sources supporting tripoding among those animals, please add it (and if so, put the relevant images back). An image of a monitor lizard tripoding would also be good. -- 101.119.14.240 (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• And it would help if you weighed in on the AfD discussion. -- 101.119.15.209 (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the heads-up on this. I have written comments to the deletion page. I agree with your edits and thanks for the time you took with these. I would like to replace some of the text and images that have been removed, however, I think I will let the current discussion of whether the article should be deleted run its course. I spent a long time looking for a picture in Wikicommons of a monitor tripoding, but I could not find one - it would be an image with great impact.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Your stuff was good, but it might have provided some ammunition to the deletionists. If the article is kept, most of it should probably go back. But you see that even with multiple rock-solid references, the deletionists want to kill the article. -- 101.119.15.220 (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes I do see that. ....I sometimes wonder about the motivations of some editors. There is so much more on Wikipedia to worry about. Thanks for the support. __DrChrissy (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheesh, what a waste of your time! I voted to keep. Good luck there! Montanabw^(talk) 07:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It's finally been kept. As you say, one wonders about the motivations of some editors. You should be able to edit the article with a free hand now. -- 101.119.29.53 (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Notices

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, DrChrissy. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.124.170.237.33 (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The IP has just advised me that they are the person who was pushing a thesis onto the encyclopedia a few months back. You probably knew that. I think the best course would be to ask at WP:RFPP for semi-protection on the pages she/he is focussing on. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I had guessed that was the ID of the IP hopper, but thanks for confirming my suspicions. I'll apply for that protection...and prepare for the predictable accusations of censorship Thanks very much.__DrChrissy (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I, Epipelagic, award DrChrissy the Resilient Barnstar for enduring with the patience of Job the great affliction of the IP hopping troll. May your recovery be prompt and beyond doubt! --Epipelagic (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to second that award! I am One of Many (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers people - thanks for the support - much appreciated.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Marian Dawkins

Why does this not mention her ex-husband? Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I think someone's User talk page is not the best place to raise such a question. I have no idea how many editors will be following my User talk page, but I am sure there will be considerably more following the Talk Marian Dawkins page, and I think you will get a much more representative response there. Of course, you can always make the edit yourself on the article. All the best.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm interested in the psychology of how you can write an article on a subject who has an ex-husband in the encyclopedia, and not mention him. Do you not know the identity of the ex-husband, or do you think it's not important in a biography? Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Please take this discussion to the appropriate Talk page.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking you. Do you not know, or do you think it unimportant? Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course I know Richard Dawkins - what professional biologist wouldn't? As to whether he should be included on the Marian Dawkins article, I do not wish to make public my opinion on that just at the moment.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

I saw the comment before you reverted and decided to ask the admin who previously range blocked the IP to consider the matter (see here). May I suggest that there are two reasons why our edit summaries should be bland. First, the matter will probably be escalated to a noticeboard again, and onlookers are notorious for seizing on red herrings ("that user failed to AGF in an edit summary!"), and that can derail a discussion. Second (and more important), is WP:DENY. If we engage with the IP, they will never go away because they will always want the last word, and they will continue for as long as they get attention. Some of my edit summaries have been wordy because they attempt to provide evidence that the IP has received an explanation, and they explain to onlookers why a comment was removed. In the future, I think we should be very brief, for example "offtopic" or "please use a noticeboard". Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine - thanks very much for the great advice - I will follow it. I guess I was just getting a little frustrated and wanting to stop good people like yourself being accused of edit warring because of 3 reverts.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and you are correct that multiple editors are required to avoid one of them being singled out for edit warring. I guess you've noticed that a helpful admin has semiprotected the articles and talk pages so things should be peaceful for a while more, and all we have to do is be ultra boring when they return. Johnuniq (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Warning

look Disruptive editing--CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

My edits can hardly be described as disruptive - we simply have a different point of view. In any case, my Talk page is not the place to discuss this. I will raise the issue on Talk:Talking birds which is the proper place.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aquatic (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) 09:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DrChrissy. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Sionk (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Refspam

Hi DrChrissy, If it doesn't look like refspam to you then please review the other contributions from this editor and let me know what you think. Looks like promotional editing with a conflict of interest to me. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I see what you mean. I have not gone through all the contributions, but there is certainly a pattern there. Each edit on its own appears justifiable, but I agree the overall pattern does indicate spam. What do we do if an editor makes edits that on there own could probably remain, but overall show a pattern of misuse?__DrChrissy (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I remove them and make contact with the editor on their talk page drawing attention to the pertinent policies and guidelines. I left one of the custom messages from Twinkle on their talk page that accomplishes this while also welcoming them. Using a level 1 warning from WP:WARN such as {{subst:uw-advert1}} would also work.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 23 January

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

• On the Talking bird page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

In a "cite web" template like the one you added, each parameter needs to start with the name of the parameter, then an equals sign, like "url=". You left out the "url=" when you included the web address, which made the citation not work right. You can see how I fixed it by clicking on this link. Thanks for helping to improve Wikipedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, DrChrissy. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Proposed deletion of Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

The article Universities Federation for Animal Welfare has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources.

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. RadioFan (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Water buffalo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphology (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) 08:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ballooning (spider) 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:

• Minn. ISBN 9780756505905. She observes that the so called ballooning is like a kite or balloon; {{cn-span|text=she is mechanically correct about the kite part, as no true balloon is ever formed by

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Free-range eggs 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:

• Eggs from indoor-only chickens might also be labelled '''cage-free''' or '''barn-roaming'''.) This is different from [[Factory farming|factory-farmed]] birds that are typically enclosed in [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Marius (giraffe) 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:

• um Tierpark: Giraftötung wäre auch in Wiener Zoo möglich]. Welt-Heute.at, 18 February 2014]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I smelled BS and you fought to keep it.

Who's being destructive? PraetorianFury (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The reference had been tagged as having questionable relevance. Without looking at the article, the relevance can not be assessed. You deleted the reference but left an edit summary as "irrelevant". When I looked at the reference, it is actually relevant, but it appears to me to be highly unreliable. So I deleted it on his basis rather than its relevance. I suggest you make your edit summaries clearer and more accurate - that way, other editors do not have to check references and clean up the mess.__DrChrissy (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a simplistic view of what happened. I recognize how Wikipedia develops. A lot of our content comes from anons and new users who don't necessarily know how to write a good encyclopedia, much less how to write on Wikipedia. So frequently on the bottom of sections you'll see a completely disconnected sentence added by a new user that may or may not actually be useful content. This was the case here, and it was so obvious because the sentence didn't say anything. I recognized it as that and wanted to delete it. But people always get up in arms whenever you delete anything, calling it censorship or destructive... So WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT are the applicable policies to mention, which I did on the talk page. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" - in other words, we shouldn't keep whatever trivial thing an anon randomly decides to add. The fact that it was an opinion piece on top of this should be indicative to you that you are being too hostile to deletions and not skeptical enough of material. PraetorianFury (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Your edit summary could easily have directed other editors to look at the reliability of the source rather than alluding to its relevance, as my edit summary did.__DrChrissy (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying I didn't know it was unreliable. But it was obvious that it was junk added by an anon or new user. It didn't say anything worthwhile, and that's why I deleted it. Bad material by a noob user. You assumed that the material was good, that buried in the source there was useful information. But that wasn't the case. I'm saying what I have been saying, deleting material isn't destructive. PraetorianFury (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

That is exactly right - I assumed good faith. "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia."Wikipedia:Assume good faith__DrChrissy (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

In an anon or new user you know nothing about and in restrospect did not know what they were doing, and whose content was obviously lacking, while you did not AGF with me despite my edit summary and talk page comments. Great application of policy there. PraetorianFury (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I struggle to see why you are being so persistent about this. If I have tracked the edits correctly, the sentence was cut and pasted from a related WP article. Again if I have tracked it correctly, this was done by an editor who I know well (on Wikipedia) and have the greatest respect for editorially - s/he is certainly not an anon or new user. The sentence said that emotions in dogs had been studied using a new technology. This sentence alone is totally relevant to the article. To have dismissed and deleted it removes/lowers the opportunity for other editors to actually research the material and decide whether it is a suitable source that clearly needs expansion in the WP article. I researched the source, assessed that it was not a suitable source, and deleted it from the article. It could still be argued that the sentence should perhaps remain because it IS relevant, but, IMO, the source does not include sufficient detail for expansion in the WP article. If it did, I think it would be highly relevant and I would have been happy to do the expansion.__DrChrissy (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Because I resent being called destructive when I'm cleaning up a mess made by another editor. You keep saying "it could be expanded" but you don't expand it. You were so sure that it was good content but you didn't even open it before throwing around accusations. You and Epipelagic have been talking down to me since my first edit even as you flagrantly disregard policy. Well now we have clear and indisputable proof. My instincts were right, and yours were wrong. There's more to contributing to this encyclopedia than a net positive character count. Remember that when you want to start a battle over the most mundance of deletions. PraetorianFury (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Reply deleted as contrary to Wikipedia:No naming editors. Yet again you are in breach of Wikipedia policy.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

To the editor who deleted my previous edit - this is MY talk page - do NOT delete MY edits unless you have good reason to and it should certainly be discussed with me prior to deletion. This is not an article page. Unauthorised editing of another Users Talk page is taken very seriously - please do not push me into reporting you.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't get to modify a discussion on your talk page. Feel free to archive it if you wish, but my comments are well within policy. WP:No naming editors is an essay, and since you have consistently overlooked the actual description of an essay, I will paste the relevant passage for you:

Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints, and may contain the advice and/or opinions of one or more editors. Consider these views with discretion.

There's a reason it doesn't say policy at the top. But go ahead, and take this to WP:ANI. Let's see what they think about you removing other users' comments.

I DO get to modify a discussion on my Talk page. "Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving."" ..from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. On these occasions, this editor reluctantly preferred not to archive because by using my discretion regarding an essay on naming other editors, it seemed the most appropriate course of action.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marius (giraffe), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pedigree (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) 08:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

'Leave a Message'

Your 'Leave a Message' box on your User page is broken. It led me here. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Marius

Please stop removing my contribution. A lot of text on wikipedia lacks a source and is not removed. I add a source, which can be considered low quality, but it is at least a source, and more worth than no source at all. Secondly, if a source is unreliable, there are templates for this. For example . Removing the whole section is a competely overblown response. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This belongs on the Talk page of the article in question. Please take it there.__DrChrissy (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest dropping ANI for now. We are dealing with someone with no clue concerning Wikipedia, and the issues (after the cleanup by FPaS) are not sufficiently clear for onlookers to bother. I am watching, and action can be taken upon recurrence. For the future, it is not always helpful for the person raising an issue (you) to respond because it makes the matter look like a tiff between two users, and third parties do not want to take the time to get involved. Ping me if wanted; no need to respond to this. Johnuniq (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I take your point. Being accused of OR is hardly likely to get me a life-time ban on Wikipedia if it was incorrectly upheld! Cheers. __DrChrissy (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, DrChrissy. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Anon126 (talk - contribs) 00:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Feel free to add me on xbox live......

You can probably guess my gamer tag.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

New discussion on WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding CYl7EPTEMA777's recent edits and block threats regarding "Talking bird"-named articles. The thread is User:CYl7EPTEMA777, blocking threats, and disruptive edits on Talking bird and related articles. Thank you. —Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Poultry

I am working on improving the article Poultry as part of the Core Contest. The reason I removed the paragraph on cockfighting was because it was suggested by the judges that it was off topic, and should be removed, see here. You will see that I have mentioned the subject in the first paragraph of the Chicken section so it had not gone entirely. The contest is due to finish today or tomorrow (there is some confusion). I would like to remove the cockfighting paragraph now, to please the judges, and you can add it back in again in a few days if you think fit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks very much for taking the time to explain this to me. I have never heard about this competition before. I actually think the judges have got it wrong on this weighting issue. To be honest, it seems rather unusual to temporarily change a page to simply win money. If the change is made to better the page, then surely the change should be permanent. In the interests of civility and friendliness, I will not re-insert this section again for a few days as you have requested. Is this competition also the reason for the unusual detail about using eggs for vaccines?__DrChrissy (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I added the vaccines paragraph because Snowmanradio suggested it should be there, but he is in fact not one of the judges. Opinions differ about what should be included! I'm stopping for the night now but I will do some more to the article tomorrow if the competition is still open. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyvio in one of your articles

I've noticed that the wording of one of the sections you have added is very similar to the source that was cited, so it needs to be paraphrased further in order to avoid copyright issues. Your contributions to Wikipedia appear to be constructive and helpful, but it's important to avoid paraphrasing non-free sources too closely. Jarble (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure how that happened. I might have inserted the section and then got called away before completing my paraphrasing. Anyway, have a look at the section now and see if you are happy enough with it to remove the hat.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Marian Dawkins". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 04:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

See ANI again, the user that initiated this is blocked for very obvious reasons. Acroterion (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

My good wishes

Hi DrChrissy! I see that the IP has been continuing to treat you very inappropriately. Speaking as someone who has had my own share of people treating me shabbily on-Wiki, I want to say whatever I can to cheer you up! Someone has some kind of inane grudge against the author of that source, and it suddenly turns into a crusade against you: there are some pretty maladjusted characters on "teh internets". One of my first such experiences, myself, was when an external website (the forums at Something Awful) organized a mass attack of IPs to go after me because, horror of horrors, I said that I didn't see the need to delete an image of a Japanese cartoon. I actually got death threats on my talk page because of that! Apparently, deleting an image from a Japanese cartoon was so important to a bunch of people that they thought it was worth spending over a month going after me. Anyway, I can look back on that and laugh. And they are all gone, and I'm still here.

You are an excellent editor, and very smart. I believe the other folks at ANI who all say that they are committed to blocking the IP whenever it shows its ugly face. Don't let the jerk get you down. Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hear Hear! Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with Tryptofish and I'll keep an eye open for the IP troll and report it to an administrator whenever it pops up. I am One of Many (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)