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)

Thank you all for these good wishes. My faith is restored. I just thought one or two people needed reminding there are humans behind the keyboards, screens and characters.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me know if you want your talk page semi-protected. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. Will let you know if that is needed but seems OK at the moment.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq. Thanks for that speedy reversion. I hardly had time to read it! It is comforting to know there are good people out there. If this persists on my Talk page, I will take up Drmies' offer of semi-protection to save us all work we should be investing in more positive actions__DrChrissy (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I've semi-protected this page for 10 days, which will probably have to be extended. I've also blocked the latest range used by your harasser. Acroterion (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.__DrChrissy (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello DrChrissy, sorry to hear about your troubles; Tryptofish gives excellent advice, as usual. p.s. Hey Acroterion, are you sure the page is semi-prot? I still see the edit-button.... Maybe you should ask Acrozilla to do this particular job?  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is a strange place, but it is very common that "badges of shame" are removed. With luck you won't need to become experienced with the nonsense seen at noticeboards, but your comment at User talk:CYl7EPTEMA777 is not helpful and should be removed. Other people are handling that side of things, and you should leave it up to them. Also, getting involved means you are opening the door for more abuse because people are entitled to respond to a comment, and there is no expectation that such a discussion could lead to anything productive. Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks so much for the advice. I take your point and I will act on it. I can't but help getting frustrated with editors entering into such discussions/incidents without perhaps fully researching what has been done. Their default is to protect open discussion but this then trivializes the harm that has been done to the project and other individuals. Once again - thanks for the advice.__DrChrissy (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You are a good person

Don't empower anyone by questioning that due to their remarks. History is replete with good people who were demonized by others, including one of my personal inspirations, Abraham Lincoln. While it is understandably frustrating, as long as you don't believe them, the opinions of petty people can't hurt you. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Doc. I'm John from Idegon and am a friend of Dennis's from WER. My father, who was a very wise man like everyone's father should be, had a saying that I think is appropriate here. "There are only two things in the world over which you have absolute control: Your own actions and how you let yourself feel about others actions."

That being said, I wanted to let you know that I have absolutely no interest in zoology or biology or any ology. What does interest me is helping new people here navigate the often scary roads in Wiki-land. And I wanted to extend to you an offer to stop by my talk page any time you feel the need to ask about technical or policy issue or simply have the need to vent. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Talking bird, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sonogram (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) 08:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Universities Federation for Animal Welfare 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:

• journal''': UFAW publishes the quarterly, peer-reviewed, scientific journal "[[Animal Welfare (journal|Animal Welfare]]".

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of feeding behaviours 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:

• **[[Self-cannibalism]] - feeding on parts of one's own body (see also [[autophagy]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Animal slaughter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lambs (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, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

for your helpful edits to Badger culling in the United Kingdom. All the best—S Marshall T/C 11:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the "thanks". Much appreciated. __DrChrissy (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Octopus (food), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pepper and Chili (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) 08:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hippo

I think it is inappropriate to state "I suggest you re-introduce the material and we then discuss it on the Talk page". Recently added disputed content must be discussed first and the objections must be addressed, before it is added back. LittleJerry (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It is entitely appropriate as per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. What is not appropriate is your unhelpful edit summaries such as "...unneeded" which suggest ownership of the page as per Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.__DrChrissy (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No, the article states:"Do not edit war. The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D". Discussion and a move toward consensus must occur before starting the cycle again." LittleJerry (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you - there is not another "Revert" after the "Discussion". The next step after Discussion is to make a "Bold" edit. I have suggested to the author that after our Discussion s/he places edited material, which you reverted, back into the article. I have not suggested a revert, so this is not edit warring, rather, I have suggested the next step in the accepted cycle.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I too have concerns with LittleJerry's tactics and implied ownership of the Hippo article, but I also see that he has been repeatedly reprimanded in the past for similar actions with other articles. To reduce the harm he has caused in this case, I have added the summarily deleted paragraph and references to the hippo talk page and opened the topic to discussion. If you have any further ideas about the section, I welcome your input. Ctatkinson (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I fell foul of these tactics on the Elephant page sometime ago with sections of material I added deleted because the references were not in the correct format for that page...a rather non-colegiate approach. I will have a look at what you have written and suggest changes.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I have stated twice why the material doesn't belong in the article and neither of you have explained why it does or addressed my objections. Another user has commented also. LittleJerry (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Annabel Giles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Channel 5 (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, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The octopus barnstar!

		The Octopus Barnstar
		Thanks for creating the new Octopus (food) article, and for expanding Wikipedia's coverage of octopus- and food-related topics! NorthAmerica1000 07:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caruncle (bird anatomy), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Snood (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) 08:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cannibalism in poultry 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:

• hens]] reared for egg production, although it can also occur amongst [[domestic turkey]]s, [[Pheasants#As gamebirds|pheasants] and other [[poultry]] species. Cannibalism can follow severe [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

References

The reference is just one of the countless number of dubious free weight loss information sites. Also, I don't think it passes WP:RS in the first place. -SFK2 (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure why you think the reference does not pass WR:RS. The main reason I reverted your deletion was because the deletion left the section without any reference at all. The reference gives its own references, including the US Database, which the motivated WP reader could follow up. Without this, they might be unsure where to go. We could place a on the reference.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I've replaced it with the original USDA source. I trust you won't have any issues with that. -SFK2 (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no "issues" at all with the replacement - good editing on your part. By the way, I think it is perhaps better that such discussions are had on the Talk page of the Article so that other interested editors may take part, rather than on a User Talk page which is likely to be seen by very few.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Watchlist

Hey DrChrissy, I'm asking assorted responsible editors I know to watchlist California Chrome for the next week or two - the horse is to run for the Triple Crown at the 2014 Belmont Stakes on June 7. The article is getting very high traffic for a horse article (over 250K hits this month) and we had some real PITA vandalism on both Derby day (where some troll posted - obviously inaccurately - that the horse died) and Preakness day (where someone who should know better went in and erased half the article in random places) plus the usual kiddie nonsense. So I'm just letting folks know that I'd welcome vandal-watching eyes. Feel free to offer comments on the article at its talk page too, it's a GA now, and I'm probably going to take it to FAC after the Belmont is over. Montanabw^(talk) 18:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Happy to oblige.__DrChrissy (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Magnetoception, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Echolocation (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) 08:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Bundled citations in Chicken eyeglasses

Hey DrChrissy. Responding to your recent edit, bundling citations is done for readability, generally because it's considered ugly by many to see rather than just and we generally try to maximize readability where we can. There are a number of choices to display bundled citations, including with and without bullets, as seen on the linked page in the section header. I prefer bullets when I do so as unlike the other citations, the bundled ones lack the blue caret (^) which shows a clear separation between it and the next one, which the bullet substitutes for, but it's no big deal (actually, it's not bid deal overall, though it would be unlikely to survive intact through a FAC without them bundled). So I do think you should re-bundle, choosing whatever format you prefer. By the way, your revert of the bundling placed spaces between the display of the footnotes, i.e., instead of. If nothing else, that should be fixed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Because this is about the content of a specific page, I am copying it to Talk - Chicken eyeglasses so that other editors can also discuss.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Blood sport 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:

• com/books/what-trout-want-a-beautiful-fiction/|title=What Trout Want: A Beautiful Fiction (excerpt from a book "What Trout Want: The Educated Trout and other Fly-fishing Myths"|author=Wyatt

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Rodent

You recently made this edit in the article Rodent which added information on rats emitting ultrasonic sounds. When I came to reformat the reference, I found that the Science News source, currently #34, does not work. Can you improve it (or could the facts be covered by the journal article)? And can you provide a reference for the bat detector statement? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I will chase down the original sources - Panksepp did work on "laughing rats". Likewise the bat detector ref. Not exactly important so I will delete if I can't find it, but will try to get a ref. first,__DrChrissy (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks or your participation in the article. I think the new taxbox would look better without the borders. LittleJerry (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Would you be able to add information on rodent intelligence? Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't like writing about "intelligence" in non-human animals, but I will put in some information on cognitive ability and function.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

LittleJerry tells me you plan to add some information to the Rodent article on cognitive ability, and I know you have made some useful contributions in the past. We are thinking of nominating the article at FAC. Would you like to join us in a joint nomination? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cwmhiraeth. Thank you for that invitation - much appreciated. I fully intended to contribute to get this aticle to FAC so I included sections on Cognition and Emotions, however, an editor has waded in removing material and adding inferior material without leaving edit summaries or taking potentially controversial edits to the Talk page. I have had exactly the same dealings with this editor on other articles in the past and it has caused me a great deal of stress. I will therefore be putting my efforts into other articles. Best of luck with the article.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not remove any information, I merely merged your two paragraphs and added some on other species in a separate line. If I'm causing you stress them I'll bow out of this project. LittleJerry (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, whoever did what, the new information looks good. Thank you for your help, DrChrissy. Do I remember hearing of experiments where animals cached food in a closed maze system but when they needed to recover it months later, the system was open so that they could bypass the long meandering passages and did so, exhibiting great spacial memory powers? Perhaps it wasn't rodents in the experiment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It is called "Latent learning" and has been demonstrated in laboratory rats__DrChrissy (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mirror test, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Animal behaviour. 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) 08:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Poultry

Poikilotherm

DrChrissy,

I edited the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poikilotherm yesterday. Why is the naked mole rat the only mammal thought to be poikilothermic ? The definition states that the body temperature varies. For example, bats are endothermic, but unlike homeothermic mammals like humans, their body temperature does drop significant when they hibernate. Why aren't they poikilothermic then ?

(this is one of the first times I edit on wikipedia so I don't know if this is the correct way to contact you) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robxwiki (talk • contribs) 10:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. The animals you mention do drop their body temperature, but it is for a relatively short period of time and it is still regulated. Poikilotherms conform to the ambient temperature all the time. If you enter information onto wikipedia, you must include references to verify this. Regarding where this should be discussed, the best place is actually on the Talk page of the article. It is not wrong to bring it here, but the Talk page will get a lot more people reading your message. Happy editing.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Gulls and tool use

Hi Chrissy, I just wanted to ask you what you thought of these two gull videos. Pretty interesting, huh? I know that you're interested in animal behaviour. The bait fishing is already mentioned in the tool use by animals article, but it's the first time I've seen it on video. The tap thing is just totally unexpected. If someone hasn't trained the gull for that, then it's absolutely amazing. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Rodent FA

Please respond to the FAC talk page. Its regarding the "Emotion" section. LittleJerry (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Need you at talk again. LittleJerry (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You will have seen Ucacha's comments at the Rodent FA page. Are you knowledgeable on / able to help with the evolutionary history and classification issues he raises? I am responsible for much of that section and doubt I can improve my efforts much, not having access to books and scientific papers that would help. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is well out of my sphere of expertise. I can't but help feel, with the greatest of respect, that the editor's assessing this article have underestimated the size of the article needed. I accept that not everything can be discussed, but this is such a large, diverse group that the article has to be large to give adequate coverage.__DrChrissy (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

And in my opinion, the behaviour of rodents is much more varied and of greater interest than say that of ungulates. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you look at the FAC talk again? LittleJerry (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

DrChrissy, I don't want to cramp your style, but we are now at an incredibly delicate stage of an FA process - we are trying to undo an explicit 'oppose' by a person in authority. I'd suggest as delicately as I may that this might not be the ideal moment to make major changes, what would you think? I don't know what chance we have of persuading him to change his mind, but whatever chances we may have can only be narrowed by changes other than those demanded by reviewers, wouldn't you say? All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I totally understand. Having worked with scientific editors all my career, they are those who must be obeyed (whether you agree with them or not!). I'll withdraw the table and other changes. I'll work more on the table and the others in my sandbox to give them a generic appearance and maybe reinstate them at a later date. Do you think these are a good way of comparing such a diverse group?__DrChrissy (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh good. Yes, such tables are an excellent way of presenting facts and figures in a way that people can readily compare. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Knuckle-walking 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:

• from humans 6 million years ago, and humans evolved upright walking without knuckle-walking.<ref>{{cite journal|title=A new kind of ancestor: Ardipithecus unveiled.|author=Gibbons, Anne|journal=
• ]s, which looked something like a cross between a [[Equidae|horse]] and a gorilla.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Tassy P.|year=1978|title=Chalicotherium: le ‘‘cheval-gorille’’|journal=La

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Knuckle-walking 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:

• from humans 6 million years ago, and humans evolved upright walking without knuckle-walking.<ref>{{cite journal|title=A new kind of ancestor: Ardipithecus unveiled.|author=Gibbons, Anne|journal=
• ]s, which looked something like a cross between a [[Equidae|horse]] and a gorilla.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Tassy P.|year=1978|title=Chalicotherium: le ‘‘cheval-gorille’’|journal=La

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes

Hi, it will probably be best if we sort things out quietly while the article is being evaluated. I'm sure we can find a sensible solution. No article can cover everything, and we need to give priority to reviewer's requests over our own preferences. In addition, substantial change during the process could itself be an issue. I'll help if anything needs doing. Meanwhile, thanks for your understanding. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

My changes were to correct an inaccuracy - gliding is not unique to flying squirrels. Surely correcting a false statement is at the very heart of getting an article to FA status. I do not recollect any reviewer saying their preference was that gliding-related text should be removed. This editor MUST learn to use the Talk page, or at the very least, give justification in the edit summary. It is extremely disrespectful and disruptive to delete sections of other editor's work without giving any reason whatsoever. As you are aware, I have refused to work with this editor before because of exactly this pattern of behaviour.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know. Please feel free to use me if I can mediate in any way. I'm sure there was no intention to offend. Your expertise is valuable to the project and we're very grateful for your contributions. I'll see if we can sort something out now. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, I felt I had to partially revert your recent edit as the reviewer has specifically commented on the undue nature of mentioning the cognition study. We are basically engaged in a life-or-death struggle to convince him that this is a worthy article, so we need to do whatever we can to keep him happy, that's the reasoning. There are still quite a few points outstanding in his list, with very likely more to follow, so we need to focus our energies on fixing those (and if you can help with any of them, it would be incredibly welcome). I hope, by the way, that you're feeling a bit more comfortable with the other editors now. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Animal anatomy project

Innotata is interested in setting up an animal anatomy project. I'm interested also providing there is at least another founder. Can we count you in? --Epipelagic (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a task force from WikiProject animals? Montanabw^(talk) 07:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I have had a think about this. As I have stated elsewhere, I intensely dislike the WP attitude of using the word "animal" when they mean "non-human animal" thereby implying humans are not animals. I'm afraid the title of WikiProject animals perpetuates this and I would much rather direct my attention to a project/task force which does not.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I know, but WP:Anatomy was pretty mean to Epipelagic when they proposed splitting into human and non-human sections. We'll get no help there. I guess my take is a) Do we need a project, however named or placed? (most likely yes), b) if so, where can it live in peace? I don't want to make the perfect into the enemy of the good.  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 14:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pregnancy (fish), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Moonfish, Molly and Swordtail. 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) 12:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pregnancy (fish) 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pregnancy (fish), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marsupium. 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) 09:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Swine

Glad you agree with my recent changes & comments on Domestic pig and Razorback. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you so much for your work on the rodent article and for contributing to its featured article review process. I am a big fan of rodents and am happy to see them well-represented on Wikipedia. It is not often that Wikipedia articles on a major class of animals gets promoted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 1 November

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 Pregnancy (fish) page, your edit caused an unsupported 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) 00:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi

I was just wondering what type of cruelty it is? currently in the page several categories are given: neglect, food industry or factory farming, psychologic disorders, cultural, circus, film industry, warfare. which one of the categories the image belongs to? neither, because it is just a man beating a dog. My first impression was that perhaps the artist tries to show a case of sadistic beating...and my second thought was that it was not the most interesting image for the lead section, I could be wrong of course. By the way, why did you revert my edit! Kiatdd (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Copying to Cruelty to animals talk page - the proper place for this discussion.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I have replied to the message there.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

RM notice

You may be interested in Talk:Razorback#Requested move November 2014, as you participated in previous related discussions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 10 November

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 Broiler 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) 00:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Broiler, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Varus, Epidermis and Valgus. 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) 17:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 20 November

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 Feral pig 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) 00:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Feral pig, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Diurnal and Laggan. 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) 00:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Otter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marine. 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) 09:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ambush predator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tripod fish. 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) 08:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiVet

Hi Dr Chrissy

I work on the WikiVet (www.wikivet.net) and have been asked to give a talk today on wikis and animal welfare - I came across your great pages and was wondering if you could give me some indication of how often they are visited and who do you think uses them - tough questions I know.

Keep up the good work

Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shorthovi (talk • contribs) 09:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Thanks for the compliment. It is relatively easy to find out how often a page is visited. Go to the page you are interested in, click on the "View History" tab at the top of the page, when this opens, click on the "Page view statistics" towards the top. As for the use of pages, I know they are used by some university degree students (including B.V.Sc. (I teach at Bristol, so I know this)), some animal welfare organisations, and other individuals concerned. If you look at the Talk pages of the articles that can sometimes give you an idea. Hope this helps. __DrChrissy (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Feral Pig

I appreciate your hard work on the "Feral Pig" article, but I think you went a bit overboard with the most recent set of edits. Overall, I find your contributions to Domestic pig and Feral pig (and presumably elsewhere) have been valuable, so please accept this small criticism in that context. Consistency of terms is important, to prevent confusion or mistake; but strict uniformity can become boring and pedantic. It's not confusing or misleading, at least in the U.S. context, to refer to feral pigs also as feral hogs and razorbacks—terms which everybody agrees are synonymous and thus equally accurate—and the variety relieves the monotony a bit. I also think that, in a discussion of feral hogs and hunting, there's room for the more conversational style that existed before your rather clinical revisions. Some of your revisions indeed seem schoolmarmish to me, and a few, such as "U.S." for "United States", seem wholly arbitrary. (Wikipedia style prefers "U.S." over "US" and "U.S.A.", but not, as far as I can recall, over "United States".) I'm not going to undo any of them (at least not directly), but I do ask you to consider easing up a little bit, and letting the article retain a somewhat relaxed tone, where that doesn't interfere with accuracy. Encyclopedic prose doesn't have to be boring. I hope you'll agree. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the positive criticisms. Regarding United States being abbreviated to U.S., I always thought the abbreviation was preferred after the initial term. I can not state any WP policy to defend this and I shall bear it in mind for future edits. Regarding the use of "feral pig" - many of the references for the U.S. section simply talk about wild-ranging porcines; they do not distinguish between released/escaped wild boar, escaped domestic strains, or hybrids. Although the definition appears quite clear in the article, some editors have argued that "razorback" refers only to wild boar. I wanted to reduce the possibility of any ambiguity introduced into the article by reports from observers who may have used the term in a different way to the definition.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing anybody who claimed that razorback applied only to wild boar (assuming that by "wild boar" we mean the Eurasian wild boar—colloquially, any feral pig may be called a "wild boar"). Be that as it may, I think general usage makes razorback synonymous with the feral hog of the Southern U.S. (and, by extension, of Australia), regardless of possible admixtures of the Eurasian breed. One of the references in the article is to a book that's available on-line, which helpfully distinguishes between feral pigs, released Eurasian boar, and hybrids. I can't remember which one it is at the moment, but I skimmed its introduction not long ago, and it seemed to confirm my understanding of the terminology. I'll try to find it again when I get some time.

One thing I'm interested in knowing—and which bears on this question pretty closely—is whether feral swine are taxonomically distinguishable from Eurasian wild boar, the way feral dogs are distinguishable from wolves. Free-ranging feral dogs, where many breeds can intermix, tend to produce what we call "yellow dogs" with pointed ears and curled tails, and not wolves, as one might expect. I'm curious to know whether our razorbacks, assuming no admixture of Eurasian boar, can be distinguished from the Eurasian breed. I imagine the book I mentioned has something to say on the subject, but I don't know when I'll have time to read it. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess what I am trying to achieve here is accuracy in a non-accurate world. It is fine when we sit in our wiki ivory towers and come up with precise, science-backed definitions (and I definately include myself as one of these ivory tower inhabitants) but it is a different matter out here in the real world. Part of the problem here is that (newspaper) reporters do not respect such definitions. Reports of a large, free-ranging,, hairy pig with tusks suddenly warrants headlines of "Razorback" because this attracts more attention, regardless of whether it is a wild boar or a feral domestic pig or whatever! It is these reports which have been used in the article. Sure they are verifiable, but are they accurate? I also think the American and Australian colloquialisms may also differ. I lived in Australia for 12 years and during that time developed the understanding that a "razorback" was a particularly large, hairy, aggressive individual, usually a male(!). There was not, to my understanding, any inference about it being a domestic pig or wild boar. As for the appearance of hybrid pigs, I don't recall seeing any photos, but I imagine the characteristic ridge back of the boar might re-appear in hybrids, although diminished. As for the Yellow dog hybrid, I'm not surprised it does not appear as a wolf as the gene pool it originates from is greatly different due to artificial selection. You have got me thinking now - your description of the yellow dog hybrid sounds remarkably like a dingo! __DrChrissy (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a dingo! Compare Dingo with Carolina dog (what I grew up calling a "yellow dog") with Indian pariah dog with all the examples in the gallery under Pariah dog. That's what you get if dogs of many breeds are allowed to intermix freely over many generations. You'd think they'd revert to the ancestral stock, i.e., wolves, but instead they breed true as yellow dogs. What I'm wondering is, do feral pigs do their version of the same thing—i.e., do they breed true as feral hogs that are distinguishable from the ancestral stock, or are American razorbacks simply wild boar, just like the Eurasian tribe? I think the answer to that question would resolve some doubts here.

The open gate

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/world/europe/dogs-in-heaven-pope-leaves-pearly-gate-open-.html User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Feral pig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black bear. 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) 09:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yellow Dogs

To follow up on our recent conversation, here's a page about an Iranian dog shelter, with lots of photos. See how many yellow (or reddish-yellow) dogs there are with pointy ears and curly tails! J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 22 December

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 Animal locomotion page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help) and an unsupported 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) 00:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Pinging

You may want to take a look at this. Montanabw^(talk) 00:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up__DrChrissy (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello DrChrissy, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Reference Errors on 27 December

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 Animal locomotion 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) 00:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Temple Grandin on ISAE page

Clearly Temple Grandin is a notable member - she has had a movie made about her life! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.210.150.233 (talk) 20:59, 29 December 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 MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

IMHO, I disagree with their answers over there, I routinely dump those silly "animal at location Foo" captions, totally unnecessary most of the time. Montanabw^(talk) 06:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so this is not a pet hate of just mine. Thanks for the thought - I perhaps need to re-think my re-think!__DrChrissy (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree also with the initial response, and often feel cross about these animal captions. Why lose the focus in articles by adding flurries of irrelevant information. Look at how silly the captions get here for a globally endemic animal! It can be as useful as including the colour and thread size of the photographer's socks. Perhaps a discussion could be opened at WikiProject Tree of Life so the matter can be aired and a measure of consensus established on a more targeted forum. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like I might have raised quite an issue here - the Mussel example is amazing! I also wonder if some of these captions of images from zoos, wildlife parks, etc, may actually be sneaky advertising.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you just came up with a good reason to remove them! I'd say that "animal in location foo" captions are useful where it matters if we demonstrate an animal's presence in its native (or introduced0 habitat, but otherwise, no. Montanabw^(talk) 03:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason for the location being stated must be made clear in the caption, e.g. Animal x in location "foo" with the substantially more pale pelage/where it was introduced in XXXX/where wild individuals interact closely with humans/etc __DrChrissy (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be one reason. To just list for random reasons is cruft and can go. I suspect the early examples were simply people copying over data that should remain with the image file page only. Montanabw^(talk) 04:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

For those interested in this discussion/issue, you might like to take a peek at Talk:Coyote__DrChrissy (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have opened the discussion up wider at [3]__DrChrissy (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Badger cull

Hi DrChrissy. Your recent addition on human cases of bovine TB is totally valid and useful - but it does seem to me to be a copy and paste of the source. Could you re-phrase it before it gets picked up by copy violation bots/searches? See WP:COPYPASTE and Examples of what is allowed and not allowed for more info. If you want to reply or have any questions you can reply here or on my talk page - whichever you prefer. Robevans123 (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmmm...are you accusing me of plagiarism on my own talk page?__DrChrissy (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Meerkat

I just edited Meerkat with a major improvement. I started editing it before you, and copied my revision before saving, then I got an edit conflict. So I pasted my revision, but I tried to reinstate your changes too. I was thinking about submitting it for GA, what do you think? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for re-instating my edits - those edit conflicts can be a real pain. I think that considering Meerkats have been the subject of so much research, the Meerkat article probably needs more detail in quite a few places. I have always got frustrated in trying to get articles to GA status because it seems some editor with a random, non-biological interest wades in and expects a huge number of ridiculous hoops to be jumped through. By all means, recommend it, and I will support you where I can, but this can be a soul-destroying experience!__DrChrissy (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Now I hit a road block, I can't find anything for a "Taxonomy" or "Classification" section. I could find stuff on taxonomy for Caracal and Malagasy civet (even though not much), but meerkat? Nope. I know what you mean, if I put it up for GA now, I don't think "I couldn't find anything" would be an acceptable way to get it passed without a taxonomy section. I might look a bit more, though. If I'm unsuccessful, at least I can say I got the ugly refimprove tag removed! --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Trouting for Mustang (grin)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

YUCK!!!!!!  ;-)

• Really wish you would have discussed this here with me. You are reawakening a pot that has been stirred so many times. Montanabw^(talk) 06:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It is actually an issue that is much bigger than just the mustang article. Using uppercase for breeds seems to be a general use on WP, however, this looks absurd when it is now agreed that the species is lowercase. So, we now have Felis silvestris catus and "Colourpoint Shorthair" which to me suggests the breed is more important than the species. I actually do not care all that much which it is, but if breeds are to be an exception to capitalisation conventions in W -, the MOS should tell editors this. All I am arguing for is adherance to the MOS, or change it! Much of the Discussion on Mustang is being sidetracked on whether the mustang is a breed or not (you have stated yourself it is not a species or sub-species). This is irrelevant to my arguement because the instructions given in MOS apply to any group of animal which does not (currently) exempt breeds.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, the capitalization of breeds issue is a never-ending saga, I know. Reasonable minds can differ. My own view is that God (or nature) made species, humans make breeds, that's the difference, in a nutshell. But even with species names and common names, I don't know if you followed "BIRDCON" at all, but that one ran off a number of very knowledgeable editors over what was basically a capitalization fight. Let's just keep the AGF going here, though, OK? And feel free to ASK me or WP Equine about why the Mustang article is the way it is - the tamed Mustang is still a Mustang, it is an example of what a Mustang looks like once it is taken off the range and re-domestciated. They make lovely horses to own if you handle them right, and what to do with the excess population is a huge issue out here in the west. Many people are trying to save these animals. See this, for example. Montanabw^(talk) 10:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Aye-aye 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:

• [[File:Ayeaye, Daubentonia madagascariensis, Joseph Wolf.jpg|thumb|upright|An aye-aye foraging, c.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wallaby 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:

• head and body length is 45 to 105 cm and the tail is 33 to 75 cm long. The six named species of [[Rock-wallaby|rock-wallabies (g. ''Petrogale'') live among rocks, usually near water; two species

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Oakland Zoo quote at Ferret

Please take a look at this guideline before incorporating quoted text into the article again. Changing a few words in the quote will not absolve Wikipedia from a charge of plagiarism, even with the citation. It needs to be made absolutely clear that the material belongs to someone else. Thanks. --VeryCrocker (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I have been writing and publishing scientific articles in top level journals (including Nature) for over 25 years. I am therefore, profesionally, well aware of what consitutes plagiarism. The important words in the WP guideline are correctly "...without providing adequate credit". If you look at the text as I left it, there was an in-line citation to the source. Yes, I closely paraphrased it and this meant it was no longer a quote, however, I directed the reader to the original source of the information and made no attempt whatsoever to claim that the wording was mine.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What't going on here?

We have had some collaborative and congenial discussion in the past, why are you now going through all these horse articles and messing them up? I've been a part of nearly 40 GA and over 15 FA class articles and I do know what I'm doing here. These terms are not "jargon" they are technical language and MOS on captions does not mandate that they be boring. I agreed with you on the location issue, I wish you'd discuss things before you go mucking around with other issues. Montanabw^(talk) 18:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I know you are a highly proficient, skilled and respected editor, however, we all have our imperfections. I am not "mucking about" with these articles, I am trying to improve them by making them more accessible to non-horsey, and perhaps, non-US citizens. I have asked for clarification where even as an experienced biologist I might not understand the term, or the term is, in my opinion, too technical. I have asked for clarification when people/characters are named who are likely unknown outside the US or the horse-world. I am asking for clarification when something is stated e.g. "early part of the century" when we don't know which century or we should be able to be more specific. I am asking for clarification with an SI unit of measurement where only hands are given. I am deleting the name of the animal from the lead image caption because this is already stated above as the image title - why repeat this! I am replacing "mare" in the lead caption with "female (mare)" because, believe it or not, there might be people out there who do not know what a mare is. Please see Lion, Deer and Moose. The reason I have made these changes is because they appear across several horse-based articles.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you just open discussion at the talk pages then? But Female (mare) looks stupid and would be trashed as a caption at FAC. Also the breed articles are not species articles. (And for what it's worth, horse is a GA.) I'd be OK if you wanted to link mare and stallion, but we have literally dozens of GA and FA-class horse articles where the technical language is used, sometimes with links to articles and sometimes with links to Glossary of equestrian terms. This issue was discussed, and the "a stallion is a boy horse" think in every single article has gone the way of the dodo. (No I can't find the diff, I have 65K edits over 8 years...I think it was some of Ealdgyth's early Quarter Horse FACs) Montanabw^(talk) 19:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And to be honest, it would not take you much more time to glance at the article and just say "20th century" or whatever as to tag-bomb. If it really IS that vague - and not just missed in a quick read - then post a friendly message at talk saying, "hey, you forgot to say WHICH century at part X of the article, want to fix it?" Often is totally meaningless. We really need content worker bees here more than fussy schoolarms "grading" older articles that have taken the back seat to more pressing work. Montanabw^(talk) 19:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I can understand that someone with your experience might think "Female (mare)" might look 'stupid', but there was a time when even you did not know what a mare is. Imagine if you are a very young reader, a non-native English reader, or perhaps an engineer reading their first ever biological article..."Female (mare)" is informative and precise. Simply putting a technical term which is not even linked, is potentially inaccessible. I doubt very much it would be trashed at an FAC. I'm not sure why you mention breed and species? Whenever I tag something with I leave an edit summary stating what I believe needs clarification. Sorry you feel I am a "fussy schoolalarm". I'm not entirely sure what that is, but my only intention is to improve articles.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's why I added the wikilink, which is a good idea, actually. Frankly, as a person who knows animals better than engineering, and article like Rankine cycle isn't particularly helpful to me without a lot of wikilinks, but I wouldn't ask the editors to "dumb it down" for me either. As for the other stuff, where you feel the need in insert multiple tags, that is a good sign it's better to just fix it or discuss the overall problem. See Wikipedia:Tag bombing. (Not sure what you mean by "I'm not sure why you mention breed and species" ?) Montanabw^(talk) 00:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Tag bombing article describes this as "...unjustified addition of numerous tags...". You do not state which article you are accusing me of doing this to. I will assume it is the Spanish mustang. I added 4 tags with edit summaries explaining the concerns. Is 4 numerous? A moot point. Three of the four tags have led to editors clarifying this information, so I would suggest the tags were justified and therefore I will reject your accusation of Tag bombing on this article.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It was Mustang and anywhere else you added more than one or two tags. Yes, I fixed it, but that was to avoid a 3RR complaint, frankly, you are taking my time away from other, more valuable CONTENT CREATION projects that I simply cannot focus on while I am trying to preserve the articles that exist from careless edits by drive-by editors who don't know what they are doing. Can you please go back to doing the things you did well, which was your work on animal health issues? We have so much that needs to be done there, and it's actual lasting content. Montanabw^(talk) 00:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You are taking this far to personally. When I add tags, I am not expecting a single editor to attend to these. There are many editors involved in the horse pages - why do you think I am expecting only you to attend to these. In addition, before I leave tags, I consider editing the article myself, if I have the correct expertise. However, in the past (and present), my edits on horse related pages are reverted or questioned for reasons known only to some exclusive members of the horse world. And this includes edits contrary to the WP:MOS as now exists on the mustang Talk page.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It is my view that it is you who have made it a personal issue when in defiance of WP:BRD you get all upset because you were reverted, especially when you were reverted on two GA-clas articles (Morgan and Sorraia) and start all kinds of drama with RMs and posts on random drama boards instead of simply discussing the issue at the article talk page. How many GA and FA class articles have YOU contributed to? How many have you nursed through the review process? Seriously. Until you understand what the highest standards are, don't lecture me. I welcome legitimate input on apparent errors, I gladly welcome typo fixing because my eyesight is poor and I have a lot of them, and I'm always open to discussion at talk on content if the argument is legitimate. Montanabw^(talk) 00:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I have already requested on the mustang Talk page that you do not bring these personal attacks to my Talk page. You have ignored this. I asked that you raise an ANI so that independent persons can look at your personal attacks on me and either support or refute these. Please do this.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You've apparently not spent much time at ANI. If I go to ANI, I will be accusing you of misbehavior and recommending a disciplinary action. I have no interest in doing this, I just want you to quit messing up articles with GA status, and I have explained at all of them why you should not do what you wanted to do. I have made NO personal attacks on you, I've only explained - over and over - what you are doing wrong with your article edits. If you don't want to listen, then I don't have much more to say. I have been editing wikipedia for eight years with a 100% clean record, having never been blocked. You certainly can go over there and say how evil I am, but read WP:BOOMERANG first. I have been a major contributor to 17 featured articles, 12 of which have been TFA. I have been a major contributor to over 40 good articles. In fact, I was also a minor contributor to Rainbow trout, which is TFA today and I don't even claim "major" contributions to that one, though I spend hours fixing up some small bits there. So I happen to know what I'm talking about, and if you really want to go to ANI over "Female (mare)" or fixed size image parameters, ask what you want: If it's my head on a plate, you will lose. If it's a ruling that you are right and I am wrong, you will lose. Montanabw^(talk) 03:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Image sizes

Just a note here because it impacts many articles: Whenever you have a forced size in an article (like 250px), it is not the preferred solution because people can set their preferences to a different default (I think current is 180px), and when they do, images of a forced size may wind up dramatically bigger or smaller than non-forced size images. The better solution to a too-small or too-big image is to use the "upright" parameter and set a value for how many times bigger or smaller you want the image to be. For example, adding "upright=1.5" will make the image 150% of the default size, whatever that default size is for that individual user. Likewise, "upright=0.8" would shrink an image to be 80% of the default. It's a more complex syntax, and it took me forever to figure out how it works, but I see why it's a more elegant approach. Montanabw^(talk) 00:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Albinism in biology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iris (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, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

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.

Albinism in biology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Talon, Boa, Diamondback, Cave fish and Photoreceptors

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fish locomotion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tripod fish (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) 09:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Cat shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. - BilCat (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

These accussatory edit-warring messages are stupid. For those who may wish to follow this, on the Cat article there was a photo of a cat with odd-coloured eyes. This is an abnormality which can occur in a great number of animals and is not specific to cats. With the limited space available for images, I felt this was not adding anything substantial to the article, so as per WP:BRD, I deleted the image with an edit summary. BilCat reverted this. I reverted this with another edit summary. BilCat reverted this without taking to the Talk page. I reverted this reversion, and here I am being accussed of edit warring. All I am doing is following WP:BRD.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

And BillCat, haven't you read "Don't template the regulars?" DrChrissy is usually very willing to discuss issues if people raise them at talk. Montanabw^(talk) 07:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your recent calm attitude at Mustang. That other editor was blocked as a sockpuppet of ItsLassieTime, who was a sock that has stalked horse and western articles in the past. I actually AM open to improving that Mustang article to GAN, it's just that it's a complex situation and it seems too many people attracted to editing it are not wanting to do sound research, just injecting emotion...but sigh... but I appreciate that even after our recent spatting you were calm and reasonable there. Thank you. Montanabw^(talk) 07:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello DrChrissy. I obviously was absolved of the accusation of being "a sock that has stalked horse and western articles in the past". I do not have a "username"; I use my own name. I am getting the impression you're a veterinarian, as is my father-who was affiliated with a veterinarian whose name you would recognize. I myself once worked for a Nobel prize winner in genetics. I know you find me annoying; a lot of people do. I gave up trying to not be annoying a long time ago; I just found that too many people were so easily annoyed that it was just not within my disposition to prevent it. But, we seem to be pretty much on the same wavelength. So, please bear with me. I only want truth, justice, and the American Way. (edit: four tildes coming:)Lynn Wysong (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I am not a veterinarian, however, I do teach them. I do not find you annoying, but I find your style of continually updating your own Talk edits withount indenting, difficult to deal with when trying to help you with article editing. It is a given that I want truth and justice on WP, but as for the American Way, let's remember WP is an encyclopaedia for the World not just North Americans.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, my experience is editing articles in which I was the only editor, so I do have some bad habits. Are you English? You spelled encyclopedia with the British spelling. So, would your concerns be alleviated if maybe there were more Wiki cross-references? Like Nevada? Because, assuming you are English, or from another British country, you may not be aware of all the politics surrounding mustangs here in the States, and how the misconceptions of their history feed into those politics. That's why I've been so stubborn on some things, and why other editors are so hostile, to the point of doing just about anything to silence me, as you may have noticed. So, specific geography is important to an accurate history, otherwise, "Western North America" or "Western United States" would be adequate. Lynn Wysong (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am English (British) and I live in England. That means (probably like 99.9% of people in this country) I am mostly unaware of the politics behind mustangs. I have come to understand some of this by editing and talking on the WP article. However, this does not mean I am unable to contribute positively to the article. If you were to make a draft re-write on the Talk page as I have requested, I can look at aspects such as wording, accurate reporting, reliability of sources, balanced reporting, etc. You mentioned I have concerns that need alleviating; please would you specify what you believe are the "concerns" that I have.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, that you have concerns that the writing is geared to much to Americans, and assumes too much cultural knowledge on the part of the reader.Lynn Wysong (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have already made edits to address those concerns. This discussion should really be on the article's Talk page so that other editors can read and contribute.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm just trying to get a feel for where you're coming from, so to speak, in your comments, and give you a feel where I'm coming from. When I put that on the talk page, it seems to sideline the main discussion.Lynn Wysong (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should think more about the edit, rather than over-thinking the editor.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

And instead of copying and pasting the entire article into the talk page twice, try a sandbox. Montanabw^(talk) 06:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I thought about that overnight, but thanks for the suggestion.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing and undue-ness at Foie Gras

In my view a lot of the recent content you have added to this article is weakly-sourced (primary/self-published) and undue, and could appear like POV-warrioring. This previously went to WP:NPOV/N and of course the advice was to use the best sources for content. Are you sure you're doing that? We should be preventing presenting an encyclopedic view of the subject summarizing accepted knowledge: listing things like the fact foie gras was banned at a 2011 German food festival risks turning the article into a miscellany of trivia (just as it would the other way if it listed famous menus/restaurants, etc. that featured foi gras). Wikipedia is not a battle ground for righting-great-wrongs. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please state exactly which references you think might be weak or un-suitable - I can not do anything about this until you specify which sources you object to. As for listing bans of foie gras - this is a controversial foodstuff. It is informative to the reader to see the history of bans being imposed, much like the section on the history of foie gras being served in Califonia, or indeed the history of its uptake as a food.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Well using Amazon as a source for Amazon to take an example. But the entire new "Bans" section is undue/out-of-place. Anyway, I see you're not going to engage ... I've tried. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I used Amazon because it is a policy statement by Amazon! Are you saying that if the government issues new legislation, we should not cite the government web-site which states the new legislation? As for my "not engaging", I think you are mistaking that for my not bowing down to your obvious biased approach to this article. I would also like to know why you brought this matter to my talk page rather than the talk page of foie gras, which is where it most certainly belongs. Perhaps you are trying to publicly embarass or humiliate me?__DrChrissy (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I can only repeat what others have said: we should use the best sources; not dredge weak sources out of Google to support a preconceived POV. I raised this on your Talk page as I am, in part, questioning your editing approach and understanding of sourcing requirements; that would not be appropriate on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

And I can only repeat what I have said - please state which sources that in your opinion are not the best. For you to do this, you must already be aware of better sources than I have provided. Please state these. I have already found other sources for the Amazon ban and I am including these in the article, despite my belief that if a company states a policy, the best source is a statement by the company itself.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I already said, the entire Bans section is undue. If there was (say) a peer-reviewed source or in-depth analysis piece discussing bans that would be a different matter, and could be usable. How did you find these sources? a Google search for "foie gras ban" maybe? How many more could be added this way, scores? hundreds? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

This is becoming absurd! How I found the sources is completely and totally irrelevant. WP has no policy on this. WP has a policy that sources should be verifiable - all my sources are verifiable. You may wish to question the quality of a source, but to do this you must state which sources you are questioning (my 3rd repeat of this I think). As for whether the Bans section should be in the article, this is a subject for the article Talk page, not my Talk page - I think it is about time you "engaged".__DrChrissy (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it is relevant how the sources are found, as searching for just one kind of source leads to skewed sourcing and so a skewed article, surely? Sources should be of high quality and content should be verifiable, and due. A shopping list of minor bans (Prince Charles!) sourced to weak sources is not due. I'll get around to editing this article again soon. I wonder if there's any really good source material on "bans"? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Any sourcing method can lead to skewness - even going through dusty books page by page, because it is what we write here on wikipedia that matters, not how we found it. Using my mysterious sourcing method, I have refrained from citing dozens of potential sources which, although clearly verifiable, are clearly biased and I have dooubted their neurtality and/or accuracy. Please define what is a "weak" source.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Resizing and repositioning photos in Altruism (biology) article

Dear DrChrissy

Thank you for your recents edits to the Altruism (biology) article. But you resized several of the photos and placed them one below the other. Not only are these illustrations noticeably smaller that all the other photographs in the article, which makes them look strange, they also do not really make the best sense in the order you have placed them. I wonder whether you would let me make them the same size as the pictures that come before and after them, and also to alternate them on the left and right sides of the page as before. I think the peacock and the racing horses shoudld be on either side of the page opposite one another to make the best sense - they are two sides of the same thought-coin (if I may coin a phrase - sorry about the unintended pun). Cheers Oggmus (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm probably being over fussy about this. The default/preferred size of images is 220px. That is why I reduced the size of these. They appear smaller than the other images in the article because the other images are over-sized at 250px. The reason I moved the peacock image is because it was sandwiching the text which should be avoided as per MOS:images. I can understand why you might want these images together, so, I'll make them into a multi-image with the peacock first. Have a look at it and tell me what you think. All the best.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi DrChrissy. I'm going to be fascinated to see what the 'multi-image' looks like. I have looked at the original sized photographs arranged as they were on a smaller screen, where "sandwiching of the text" is a problem on some pages, but in this case it looks absolutely fine and attractive to me. But then it might be that my less-than-perfect eyesight finds that these default sized images look stingy and mean like a cheaply printed book that has tried to save money on the ink! But let's see how it goes. Go well Oggmus (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Done it! I think it looks good - but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Let me know what you think.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm very impressed! That looks great. But can we now make the pygmy Kingfisher a bit bigger? It looks tiny and even mingier now. Sorry to be such a pain. The multi-image is a brilliant idea - no doubt about that. Many thanks. Oggmus (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Glad you like it! I agree with you that the default image size is too small - especially when the images are really attractive onese. whispering I tell you what. Why don't you increase the size of the kingfisher and I will drop my fussiness watchdog....but don't tell anyone else, it's between you and me ok?  ;-)__DrChrissy (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

:)  Oggmus (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Photo in Battery cage

Please see Talk:Poultry_farming#Title_photo. --LL221W (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Foie gras. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.
This is being discussed on Talk. Instead of engaging there with a specific description of the edits, you are continually reverting and in the process messing up the encyclopedia by duplicating content across articles. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

COMMENT At this stage, I have reverted only once! Yes, once! This notice is extremely premature and I take it to be a form of harassment by an editor who simply does not like less "paltable" facts being placed on the Foie gras article.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You are at 3RR, and have not engaged with the discussion about these changes on the Talk page. If you revert again to exceed 3RR within the 24hr period, I shall report you at WP:AN3. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh that's right, it is 3R in 24 hrs. I was editing late last night and today is another day...but within 24hrs.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest: general information

From recent comments it seems you may know personally an author of a work you cited at Foie gras. This raises at least the possibility of a conflict of interest. Please be aware of our WP:COI guidance, and also the Wikimedia Terms of Use which govern contributions. Best practice, if there is a COI, is to follow the guidance at WP:COIU. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Ian Duncan is a scientist working in animal behaviour and welfare. I am a scientist working in animal behaviour and welfare. We meet at conferences and have a professional relationship. Is this a conflict of interest? If it is, I might as well give up editing on Wikipedia.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, DrChrissy. I saw this because I read your message at the Teahouse. The message doesn't say you have a conflict of interest, only that you should check to make sure you don't. Just having met someone doesn't create a conflict of interest; we meet a lot of people in our lives. If you had a reason (besides general helpfulness) to be promoting this person's career or reputation, then there would be a conflict. For example, if you worked on the same project, which you mentioned in the article, or if you were in a supervisory position over him, or if he had asked you to work on the page, for example. A "professional relationship" can mean anything from waving across a conference room to authoring papers together. You will know best about this, and I'm sure that you can successfully follow the guidelines, since scientists are all experienced at creating documents to meet various criteria. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a conflict of interest its expertise and professionalism in your field. WP needs experts and expertise should not be confused with COI.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC))

I agree with olive and DrChrissy. I had to deal with a bunch of nonsense with someone who argued that because I am a member of a national organization with thousands of members, I therefore shouldn't edit articles in that area without a COI tag. How silly is that? Shall we ban historians from working on history articles or lawyers from law articles? I know! Let's ban all experts and let disgruntled 14 year olds who live in their mom's basement run wikipedia... or wait, maybe they already do? LOL!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 04:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all the above editors for their support and advice. I wave to Ian at conferences, I have worked with Ian and co-authored papers with him, but not the one which I cited, I am in no position to influence his career, and I have actually not spoken to him for about 7 years. I am perfectly happy there is no COI. @Alexbrn Would you agree?__DrChrissy (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. There is only the risk of COI if editing intersects with some kind of personal/professional/financial interest (in the sense of having some kind of stake), and in Ian Duncan's case that clearly isn't happening. You will know if you have any other kind of COI in relation to foie gras ... or any other topic. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:41, 15 March 2015 (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 —Anne Delong (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

edit war notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Foie gras. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't be silly - it is several days since I edited the page regarding this subject matter - how can the 3RRR possibly apply.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

slow motion edit warring is still edit warring. The notice is not telling that you have violated 3RR (you would get a notice of edit-warring board posting for that) -- this is warning you that you are heading there. there is zero consensus to restore that material on the Talk page. you did it, grave-dancingly, which makes it double-ugly. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

What a load of complete rubbish. There was never any discussion, let alone consensus, to move the Legislation section. I am simply placing it back where it belongs, and let's take the discussion from there as to whether it should be moved or not. As for "slow motion" or "grave-dancingly" (what a stupid word), I took advice from the pages on edit warring and decided to have a few days out to calm down. I did that, but still believe these sections should be included on the page. I suggest you start discussion on the Talk page about why these sections should not be included__DrChrissy (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

We've been talking about it - i thought we had mostly resolved it. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

and i remind you again, to discuss content, not contributors. making remarks like ("what a stupid word") do nothing to help you gain consensus for what you want. Why do it? Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Foie gras

What seems to be the problem? --John (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for getting back to me. WoW...where do I start. This pair of editors seem to think that as soon as any edit is made on Foie gras, the instant reaction is to revert it and then expect the contributor to prove to the very, very highest standards (those used by the medical fraternity on WP), that an edit should be accepted. They continually use subjective criteria e.g. weight, dueness, primary sources (meaning scientific papers in international peer-reviewed journals), undue length, as reasons for reverting edits. One of this pair even appears to be claiming that sources older than 5 years of age should not be allowed because this is the standard of medical articles. I have even been followed to my own Talk page and accused of plagiarism and that my sourcing techniques are sub-standard (surely it is the quality of my edit that is the concern, not how I found it. Forgive me, it is late here and I have not given you diffs or precise locations of comments or reverte. If you wish me to prepare these, I will. Once again, thank you for your interest.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

all in all, just some content disputes with some thin-skin/bad attitude. The only serious issue is COPYVIO, as far as I can see, which we have resolved now. So I would say, nothing to see, except for some popcorn-munchable drama. But here it is:

• Sources issue mentioned by drchrissy:

A fourth editor provided a list of possible sources about negative effects on ducks of force-feeding.0

i went through them and categorized them as primary/secondary/tertiary and commented that we should not use primary sources, and should use secondary or tertiary.... i did not include/exclude based on age, but did comment on age.

drcrissy reacted sarcastically to my noting that a ~9 year old source was "old"

drcrissy then actually asked what is "too old"

to which i replied that no policy or guideline (other than MEDRS which says ~5 years for most things, and noted the MEDRS ~may~ apply to vet med) defines "too old", but RS does say "some scholarly material may be outdated" - I still made no actual judgement as to usability or not, based on age

Alexbrn helpfully noted that he had done a search and there has been little study on the issue after 2009

to which i replied that "old" is maybe not too old, indeed.

• COPYVIO issue

In the meantime Alexbrn noted that content that drcrissy had added to the article was just possibly maybe COPYVIO, "was copy/pasted from the source, which takes us into WP:PLAGIARISM territory"

to which drcrissy reacted with his favorite exclamation of "rubbish".

and left a nasty note on Alexbrn's Talk page

i pointed out that it was mighty close paraphrasing

i pinged Moonriddengirl with drcrissy's permission to get her take on it

Moonriddengirl found that "I'm afraid that the content does follow very closely."

which drcrissy again rejected

I then asked the 4th editor, who just happened to be part of the copvio cleanup crew, his opinion on the copyvio thing

and he said, "DrChrissy You didn't paraphrase that text anywhere near enough. You should spend time on this, reading and contemplating wp:close paraphrasing."

and in a post filled with objections, drchrissy finally agreed that if it comes back in (there are other issues withi UNDUE and OFFTOPIC) it should be re-written. so much dramah. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• the other thing going on, is that drchrissy had been building content in the Foie gras that duplicates content in the Foie gras controversy article about legislation, bans etc. Alexbrn and I believe that we shouldn't have duplicate content in two articles, per WP:SYNC, and instead we should use WP:SUMMARY style, so we have implemented that, which has made drchrisssy unhappy. (under discussion here) In an unpretty move, Drchrissy took advantage of your block on Alexbrn to edit war the content back in. Which I took back out

so that all happened too.

all in all, just some content disputes with some thin-skin/bad attitude. The only serious issue is COPYVIO, as far as I can see, which we have resolved now. So I would say, nothing to see, except for some popcorn-munchable drama. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a storm in a tea cup. Jytdog and Alexbrn do sterling work combating sloppy sourcing and POV vandals on human health related areas, using WP:MEDMOS as their criteria. There is a danger, after working diligently for a while in such an area, of developing a blinkered and jaundiced view of anyone not editing according to the standards you are use to. This can start spilling over to editors who are neither writing in health related areas nor are POV vandals. DrChrissy is such an editor. He is a highly competent editor writing on matters relating to animal behaviour. WP:MEDMOS can be seriously inadequate in that area, particularly in its stance on primary sources. Drchrissy's part in this is that he takes the attacks on him seriously. Still, if you guys, the three of you, are having fun carrying on like this, then by all means keep going. But try and keep nastiness out of it and keep it away from the article talk pages. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

with that, i almost entirely agree (as we discussed, i think primary sources are way over-used in WP) :) Jytdog (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC) (amend what alexbrn wrote, to be quote, to avoid interpretation and present just the facts. My apologies. Jytdog (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC))

I do not agree with the way you characterised the one-off issue DrChrissy had with close paraphrasing. You say for example the issue was initiated when "Alexbrn noted that content that drcrissy had added to the article was just possibly maybe COPYVIO". Alexbrn in fact said outright that the issue had moved into "WP:PLAGIARISM territory". In the context that was unnecessary and inflammatory. Both you and Alexbrn have been behaving towards DrChrissy in a manner which seems intended to inflame. I agree with DrChrissy that the MEDMOS hardline approach you and Alexbrn both adopt can be lazy nonsense when applied outside medical areas. I have written various articles myself which revolve around a single primary source, for example Planetary boundaries and Self-propelled particles. Your notion that sources in science that are older than five years should not be used is, in some contexts, also risible dribble. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Despite being asked not to, you are continuing to base comments about me on your supposition about what my "intent" is – suppositions which I have already said are wrong. By saying that the (fairly obvious plagiarism) was taking us into "plagiarism territory" I meant to be soft, by saying we were entering somewhere where plagiarism might be an issue (in the same way bandits might be an issue when one enters "bandit territory"). And MEDMOS!? I am not that familiar with it and don't believe I have ever raised it in relation to foie gras? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 11:40, 20 March 2015‎ {UTC)

Epipelagic In response to drchrissy's note on his Talk page, Alexbrn wrote: " Wikipedia article Talk page comment about an edit (by an anonymized editor) is hardly a public accusation, and I said the edit "took us into WP:PLAGIARISM territory" which is about as tentative & gentle a way as it could be expressed. I hope you take plagiarism and copyright violation as seriously as you take this "accusation". ". And you, Moonriddengirl, and I alll agreed that the content was problematic... and in my view, it is the most important issue with the content that drcrhissy introduced. Not inflammatory at all, but dealing with content issues on the basis of PAG, with clarity and civility.

I have not been behaving toward drchrissy much at all. He is the one who keeps commenting on contributors, not content.

On the primary/secondary thing... every content policy - OR, NPOV, and VERIFY - calls us to use secondary sources, as do the two sourcing guidelines, RS and MEDRS. The call for us to use secondary sources is deep in the guts of WP and goes right to what we do here as editors, not authors. We rely on secondary sources to interpret the primary sources (we cannot) and for the crucial meta-decisions we need to make about how much WEIGHT any idea should get, relative to the rest of what reliable sources say. I do bring that to bear a lot in my editing - I acknowledge that - and I will be happy to defend that anywhere, anytime. Important thing here , i never made the general statement - and I never would - that "sources in science that are older than five years should not be used". (please see what i wrote again, if you like) That mischaracterizes what I wrote and violates the TPG, and doing that is uncharacteristic for you, as far as I know you. Please strike it. Thanks.

this appears to be devolving. Above, John asked what is up, in response to drchrissy's claim of bad behavior on Foie gras here, on Alexbrn's Talk page. drchrissy responded with what i saw as an inaccurate description of what has been going on, and i provided my version, backed by diffs. It is unclear to me what value there is, in continuing this. Jytdog (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn wrote above "By saying that the (fairly obvious plagiarism) was taking us into "plagiarism territory" ..." You are again stating publicly that you believe I have committed plagiarism. I have already conceded that 9 (nine) words were copy and pasted, but I have also emphasized there was an attribution to the source. Are you really serious about accusing me of plagiarism?__DrChrissy (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog.

In your message above, you wrote that Epipelagic had stated you had written a general statement "sources in science that are older than five years should not be used". By placing this in quotes, you seem to be directly attributing this to Epipelagic. This is a false accusation. Epipelagic discussed the issue by starting with "Your notion...". Yet again, an inaccurate and inflammatory edit.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog. I notice you have made an edit to my talk page which hides part of an original posting. This is my talk page - I do not believe in censorship or self-censorship. Please te-instate your original posting.

I disagree - what he wrote is not my notion - I never said that. But really, John asked and has been answered - he'll decide if there is anything for him to do here. With regard to my changing my comments, I have either redacted {using strike and underlining, and noting that I did that) something that was already commented on, or straightup edited something that had not been commented on. Both are fine, per WP:REDACT. With regard to your rights here on your Talk page: per WP:TPG: 1) "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page"; 2) "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages" (keeping #1 in mind, of course); 3) you can ask me not to write here anymore. Jytdog (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you perhaps deliberately misunderstanding my post? It clearly states that Epipelagic started their discussion "Your notion...". It is not being suggested that you said this, so please attend to your false accusation. Regarding this being my talk page, I can request you not to distort what you have previously posted and then thought better about - something you have done before.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

i don't agree with what you say; he mischaracterized "my notion". I won't continue this, which is really getting sideshowy. Would you please just talk through content issues we are having on Foie gras, at the Foie gras talk page? Discussions about content do not have to get personal or dramatic, ever. Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Epipelagic did not mischaracterise your notion. Epipelagic very thoughtfully listed several possible sources to improve the foie gras article. You then reprinted the list and added whether or not they were "old" thereby discrediting them as valuable sources. Given that Foie gras production is hundreds of years old and is a gradually vanishing practice (and therefore there is little ongoing research), it is nonsensical to apply a "5-year worthiness" criterion that relates to human medical research which is current and ongoing. You left me with exactly the same impression that I believe Epipelagic had.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for your sloppy reading. Nor am i responsible for your insistence on maintaining your sloppiness in the face of my directly telling you that your reading is incorrect and providing you with the exact thing i said. so there you go. although i use salty language i generally write with precision. especially when i have someone crawling up my asshole with a microscope. I am unwatching your Talk page. This is a fucking circus. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)