Jump to content

User talk:Kevmin: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 312: Line 312:
You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#RfC:_In_WP:Naming_Conventions.2C_should_the_specific_exceptions_to_.22Use_Common_Name.22_be_removed.3F this location]. [[user:Xandar|'''''<font color="003366">Xan</font>''''']][[User talk:Xandar#top|'''''<font color="00A86B">dar</font>''''']] 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#RfC:_In_WP:Naming_Conventions.2C_should_the_specific_exceptions_to_.22Use_Common_Name.22_be_removed.3F this location]. [[user:Xandar|'''''<font color="003366">Xan</font>''''']][[User talk:Xandar#top|'''''<font color="00A86B">dar</font>''''']] 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


== Sapphire ==
==Sapphire==

Given the seriousness of cut'n'paste copyvios, I think it was inappropriate for you to restore the material I deleted - much less to demand a "reference" when I'd provided a clear one (US Patent 6447938). I've done the deletion over, and added a URL for the patent abstract, from which the deleted material had been taken word-for-word. I hope that'll satisfy you. Do note that I'm not claiming the patent was infringed as a patent (which would raise plenty of issues, of course); I'm saying that the actual words of the patent document were cut and pasted. Copyright, not patent, violation. Even if patent documents were public domain from a copyright perspective (which I'm pretty sure they are not) it would be inappropriate use of the source material. Those paragraphs don't even make any sense in the context of the Wikipedia article where they were pasted, where it starts out talking about the general idea of silicon-on-sapphire IC technology and then in mid-sentence switches to the specifics of "the present invention." [[Special:Contributions/216.59.252.65|216.59.252.65]] ([[User talk:216.59.252.65|talk]]) 22:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Given the seriousness of cut'n'paste copyvios, I think it was inappropriate for you to restore the material I deleted - much less to demand a "reference" when I'd provided a clear one (US Patent 6447938). I've done the deletion over, and added a URL for the patent abstract, from which the deleted material had been taken word-for-word. I hope that'll satisfy you. Do note that I'm not claiming the patent was infringed as a patent (which would raise plenty of issues, of course); I'm saying that the actual words of the patent document were cut and pasted. Copyright, not patent, violation. Even if patent documents were public domain from a copyright perspective (which I'm pretty sure they are not) it would be inappropriate use of the source material. Those paragraphs don't even make any sense in the context of the Wikipedia article where they were pasted, where it starts out talking about the general idea of silicon-on-sapphire IC technology and then in mid-sentence switches to the specifics of "the present invention." [[Special:Contributions/216.59.252.65|216.59.252.65]] ([[User talk:216.59.252.65|talk]]) 22:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


== Removing Mammals Tag ==
==Removing Mammals Tag==


The removal from the European Otter seems to be a mistake on my part.I thank you for the revert, however in saying that it would have also been nice if you could have rated the article. In regards to the [[Giraffa jumae]] it is better suited to the other wikiproject scopes. Once again if you made the effort to revert do you not think u could have spent a further few moments rating the artcle????, Thats the problem i am facing, 300+ articles that were tagged and never rated. I completed around 150 tags last night so forgive me if i make 2 or 3 mistakes, maybe if some people spent more time helping and less time complaining it would work better. '''<font color="004730 " face="comic sans ms">[[User:ZooPro|Zoo]]</font><font color="FFD200" face="comic sans ms">[[User talk:ZooPro|Pro]]</font>''' 23:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The removal from the European Otter seems to be a mistake on my part.I thank you for the revert, however in saying that it would have also been nice if you could have rated the article. In regards to the [[Giraffa jumae]] it is better suited to the other wikiproject scopes. Once again if you made the effort to revert do you not think u could have spent a further few moments rating the artcle????, Thats the problem i am facing, 300+ articles that were tagged and never rated. I completed around 150 tags last night so forgive me if i make 2 or 3 mistakes, maybe if some people spent more time helping and less time complaining it would work better. '''<font color="004730 " face="comic sans ms">[[User:ZooPro|Zoo]]</font><font color="FFD200" face="comic sans ms">[[User talk:ZooPro|Pro]]</font>''' 23:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Line 325: Line 324:
:Thanks, I've been informed incorrectly and have seen many done with more than one species. Repairs (redirects) done and increasing data on genera article instead. [[User:Noles1984|Noles1984]] ([[User talk:Noles1984|talk]]) 19:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks, I've been informed incorrectly and have seen many done with more than one species. Repairs (redirects) done and increasing data on genera article instead. [[User:Noles1984|Noles1984]] ([[User talk:Noles1984|talk]]) 19:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


== Paleontology vs Archaeology ==
==Paleontology vs Archaeology==


Yup, closer reading was required. The catchall "Natural history museum" is the best choice. Thanks for catching that, though I see it's close to home for you. Looks like a cool place. [[User:Dmadeo|dm]] ([[User talk:Dmadeo|talk]]) 13:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Yup, closer reading was required. The catchall "Natural history museum" is the best choice. Thanks for catching that, though I see it's close to home for you. Looks like a cool place. [[User:Dmadeo|dm]] ([[User talk:Dmadeo|talk]]) 13:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


== Araucarioxylon arizonicum ==
==Araucarioxylon arizonicum==
Hi. As nominator, you may close the request to move [[Araucarioxylon arizonicum]]. Would you like to do that? Once it closes, I can request that [[User:Una Smith/Araucarioxylon]] be moved. --[[User:Una Smith|Una Smith]] ([[User talk:Una Smith|talk]]) 04:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


==IMA?==
Hi. As nominator, you may close the request to move [[Araucarioxylon arizonicum]]. Would you like to do that? Once it closes, I can request that [[User:Una Smith/Araucarioxylon]] be moved. --[[User:Una Smith|Una Smith]] ([[User talk:Una Smith|talk]]) 04:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
IMA sets all gemological terms??? Hmm yeah.. I'm going to need a citation that. I'm a GIA grad and I've never even heard of the IMA. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say GIA supersedes them. --[[Special:Contributions/98.232.181.201|98.232.181.201]] ([[User talk:98.232.181.201|talk]]) 06:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:09, 9 December 2009

Please note that if you post something for me here, put this page on your watch list -- I'll respond to it here.

If I posted on your talk page, you can reply on your talk page and I'll be watching your page.

This makes it easier for both of us to keep everything in context.

Thanks.


License tagging for Image:Torbernite1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Torbernite1.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

List of minerals

Regarding azurite edits. I think if you examine the List of minerals article, you will find it does not claim to list all minerals for which there are Wikipedia articles - it is not comprehensive. Also the big list is linked there and needn't be linked in individual mineral articles. Thanks, Vsmith 21:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What make you think it is not Grossular_Garnet? It was discussed here and there was no definite answer, but it was leaning toward Grossular. It if you disagree with identification, could you tell me what you think it is so I can change the name? --Digon3 talk 20:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Triangle shaped faces that are prominent in this specimen are extreemly rare and do not occur in the arangemant of faces on your specimen. This is most likly to be quartz which has terminations that look exactly like this compair the specimens shown in the [[1] gallery and the [[2]] gallery at mindat. Colorless garnets are extreemly rare.--Kevmin 21:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for Ammonite Stuff

I just wanted to thank you for helping to flesh out some of the ammonite stubs! <333 Abyssal leviathin 03:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phamton Crystals

I created a page called Phantom crystal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_crystal Would you mind editing it? Thank you! Neptunekh 03:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kev,

Can I ask you where exactly you found the family "Iviidae" as a part of Cypraeoidea? Is this a fossil family? If so we should indicate that. Since I have been unable to find this family among living mollusks, and because when I google it I get only Wikipedia-derived mentions, I am temporarily deleting the reference until I have some more evidence.

I very much look forward to hearing from you. Thanks, Invertzoo 13:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Fault

Sorry about that one. I was slightly careless. Lack of sleep is a bad thing. lol Do you know of any recently updated scientific articles on T-rex or Giga??Mcelite (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite[reply]

Scale information

Hi. I am sorry that you removed my additions to a number of mineral articles. It is imporant that an idea of scale is given on images within scientific aricles. This is a fundamental concept, otherwise how are readers to know if the object was, say, 1 millimetre or 10 metres across. It is quite legimate to noted the abscence of this information. I am even more dispointed regarding the actions of an aministrator in relation to my edits. Rather tahn engaing in debate this admin, Dreadstar, accused me of vandalism, threatened me and the blocked my edits. I would have been more than happy to discuss my edits with yourself, the adminstrator and anyone else. This I understand the "Wikipedia way." However this administrator has simply proved what many others have suggested, that admins use theier "powers" for their own enjoyment and to massage their fragile egos rather than for the benefit of Wikipedia. I have now changed by IP address and would still be happy to discuss the need for scale information on the images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.222.195 (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes to articles on Ediacaran fossils

A rough consensus has developed that many of the Ediacaran fossils cannot be reliably assigned to any current kingdom, and should be left unassigned generally at any point above the Genus level. I'm not going to revert you, but don't be surprised if other editors do revert you. -- Donald Albury 21:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ferry County NRHP

Hey, good job on getting these filled out! Murderbike (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what good timing. I've been busting my butt getting the Pierce County list filled out, your article does a lot to help. And your citations look fine. Oh yeah, I think Sabalites is still an article that needs writing, not my area of expertise though. I'll see if I can't dig up some sources on those last FC sites. Cheers! Murderbike (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, this book has a couple sentences about the school. Not a lot of detail, but it's a start. this one has a picture, maybe more? my library doesn't have it. Murderbike (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This book has info on the Barstow Bridge, and my library has it. I could photocopy the relevant pages and send them to you if you want. I suspect it also has info on the other bridge. Murderbike (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I fixed some minor things in the carousel article, looks pretty good now. As well, I photocopied the pages out of that book having to do with the two Ferry County bridges. If you want, I can mail them to you. I would do the articles myself, but I've bitten off a big project in completely overhauling the NRHP lists with a new table. Let me know if you want those pages. Murderbike (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Smilodon merge

Hi. You recently suggested that Smilodon articles be merged. On that article's Talk page, I mention that at least one member of WikiProject Mammals told me that "every species warrants its own page." I have no idea whether this is the consensus of WikiProject Mammals or not.
In fact, now I think that I'll post to them and ask for a firm declaration on this question. I personally don't care how we do it, but I think that we should be consistent with all Mammals articles. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nautilus

Wrong age-- nice catch! :) It's people like you that we need more of on Wikipedia! Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the Dagger

Logically, you are correct. I don't know of any wikipolicy - if you come across one, please let me know of it. My view is that "enthusiastic use" does no harm - if you feel differently, feel free to revert. I suppose the one advantage "enthusiastic use" could have is that if the dagger is used only once for a high-level taxon, it could be overlooked by casual readers.WolfmanSF (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aquamarine

I made a change to the aquamarine page. I thought it was weird that 1) people reading the article would have no idea what the value of the gemstone is. (You indicated that was why you removed it: "Wikipedia is not a price guide" ). 2) I thought it was necessary to include something about aquamarine treatments. So why was that part taken off? I am a bit new to wikipedia: I would like to contribute and I have read the guidelines, but if my contributions are taken off, I guess I need to understand better to avoid wasted time. Thanks (Smartstar10 (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Horses

Hi Kev, I see you are putting a courageous effort into the re-linking thing. One suggestion is that WP MOS policy that we only need to wikilink and article the first time it appears. May save you some effort. I am still unclear on the reason that we break apart Equidae and Equus (it sounds like most Equidae are all extinct ancestors of the modern horse, but I am not really clear on this; like I freely admit, I am not a taxonomist). I really, really, really don't want to have to re-link all these articles again later, so what I need is extensive reassurance that you really DO know what you are doing, OK? (smile). Montanabw(talk) 22:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miohippus

It's great to see that the article I added an image to less than a year ago has evolved again! Thanks for locating a better image. The skull is a lot more useful than the paleobiome with 10 species in it. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 18:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Kev, just so you know, Una and I have a long "history" that includes a WQA, an AN/I, a mediation on article content, and many, many article disputes. I do not intend this to be in any way a personal attack on Una nor do I have any desire to stir up yet another round of same, but I just wanted to let you know that this is out there. I really hope that this old stuff does not start up again, but I also don't want any innocent third parties such as yourself to be dragged in unawares! (smile). Montanabw(talk) 01:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. Montanabw(talk) 16:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kev, I am NOT upset at you. Somewhere in the mess of that talk page, I decided that I had come around to your way of thinking on the matter that if there needed to be a taxonomy template different from the main one, that was fine. I'm unhappy now because while I could live with the renaming, I just didn't want the old template removed from hundreds of articles, particularly without any real discussion about it. Montanabw(talk) 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kev, once again, I am not criticizing you. (Mutual Chill?) So far your edits have been constructive and well done. You have previously been gracious in answering my questions about taxonomy, an area where I have not had much study, and until recently, you have done so with courtesy and patience. I DO have concerns with another editor you know of, who has an extensive history of inserting inaccurate, unsourced, WP:FRINGE material into the horse articles and then viciously attacking anyone who challenges this material. This same editor DOES sometimes also make constructive edits and can, occasionally, engage in successful collaboration. However, due to the fact that both good and bad edits can come from this editor and she can make massive numbers of edits in a remarkably short time, that editor is under close scrutiny any time she appears at WPEQ. Sometime innocent parties get caught in the crossfire, and I apologize that this has happened to you. Montanabw(talk) 04:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refactor?

Hi Kevmin. Did you mean to address me here? --Una Smith (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Otodus obliquus page move

Responding here, as well as on the Otodus obliquus talk page.

As far as I know, there is only one species of Otodus. There is a possible nomen dubium(spelling?), Otodus subserratus, that is now believed to be Carcharocles aksuaticus instead. There is a weakly serrated (morpho)species, Otodus/Carcharocles. aksuaticus, but that is a transitional species. Furthermore, there was an Otodus appendiculata, but that was renamed into Cretalamna appendiculata.Spotty11222 (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sighing

I knew it. We started on horse taxonomy and edit war begins across a zillion articles. Not your fault, by the way, I'm just whining because I wish I knew how to keep people from reinventing the wheel. Sigh... Montanabw(talk) 23:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Equus ferus ferus and Tarpan

I have tried to untangle the taxonomy of Equus ferus ferus from the question of what is a Tarpan. The versions prior to Kim's reverts are here and here. Would you take a look and tell me if it works for you? --Una Smith (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haplophrentis a mollusk?

Hello Kevmin,

It's good to see other people interested in hyoliths! It looks like you've edited the pages about Hyolitha in general and Haplophrentis in particular to classify them as mollusks, and cited the reference of Wotte 2006. While I'd like to think the mystery of hyolith affinities has been solved, Wotte's paper doesn't seem to present any new evidence that they are mollusks, or really address their classification at all. Have I missed something?

A recent paper [1] implies that their classification is still contentious, saying "One opponent view holds that hyoliths may be reasonably accommodated under the Phylum Mollusca (Malinky and Yochelson, 2007 and references therein), whereas another supports separate phylum status under the name Hyolitha (Pojeta, 1987 and references therein)" (p.147).

Unless we have some compelling new evidence, it may be best to suspend judgment about where hyoliths fit in the tree of life.

Cheers, Cephal-odd (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Malinky, John M. (2009). "Permian Hyolithida from Australia: The Last of the Hyoliths?". Journal of Paleontology. 83 (1): 147–152.
Good to know, I think that inforamtion about both opinions should be added to the, very, meger section about taxonomic placement in at least the Hyolitha article. As you have the more recent article (and access to the article?) could you expand it?--Kevmin (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tombstone, as the one I was pointed to for coordinating the Navtemplates, I was interested in the decision not to include extinct taxa. Could you link me to any discussions regarding this decision, Thanks. --Kevmin (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back in January of 2008, there were hardly any mammal templates except for {{mammals}}, rodents, primates, and maybe one or two others. They were all different and haphazard, so I set out to organize all of the mammal pages into templates and standardize all of the templates, see User:Tombstone/Mammal templates.
A few other editors did a template here or there (including User:Scottalter), but all of the mammal templates follow the same format I developed back in January/February of '08. In creating the templates, I ran into several problems: the order articles had different taxonomy than the family and genus articles, some mammals were listed as both a species and subspecies, etc. User:UtherSRG was the biggest help and over at WP:MAMMAL it was decided that MSW3 should be the primary source. Therefore, in doing the templates, I followed MSW3 pretty much to a tee. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Article templates/doc for the standardized guidelines I am following (I developed that from feedback from various editors and User:UtherSRG). Note that most of this was developed by being bold and seeing what the reaction was when the dust settled, so I can't really point you to a formal discussion.
As you know, MSW3 only includes extinct species form the past couple of hundred years or so, and does not provide common names for subspecies, so it was hard to include such animals on the templates with much certainty. But the main reason I decided to leave off extinct species and subspecies was SPACE! Those templates would be so massive they would serve no purpose. The impression I got from feedback and observation was that most WP readers are satisfied with extant mammals on the templates.
My plan was to first finish the extant species, then go back and create templates for subspecies of the more popular species (brown bear, tiger, etc.), and then go back and do extinct mammals. And then do birds, and then do reptiles, and then do amphibians, and then do AAAAAAAAAAA!
So if extinct species are included on the {{Perissodactyla}}, I would have to oppose because it would be entirely inconsistent with the rest of the mammal templates; I am a huge believer of consistency, simplicity and standardization on these templates so that, for example, a student in a biology class would know exactly what to expect from navigating via these templates. I would, however, be all in favor of creating a new template for extinct species (which I was going to volunteer to do, but see others have already taken this upon themselves). Hope this sheds some light on the mammal templates, Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Megalodon

Hi Kevmin. I happened to notice your sandbox on Megalodon. Quite by coincidence, that has come up in a WikiProject Plants discussion here, about how various taxonomic communities handle form taxa. Care to comment? --Una Smith (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Realgems.org - a useful website for Wiki users?

Kevmin, you wrote: "The information present in your webpage is already covered in more detail by the information on this page and is references. Thus if your page is not being utilized as a reference, and its amin purpose is driving up visits to your site, it is link spam."

Let me explain why I am doing my best to support the Wiki mineral and gemstones pages: I always thought that Wikipedia is a worldwide online resource for information and education. Therefore I added external links to my own website on a lot of Wiki pages/projects. I did that from July 2009 until December 2009 without being accused being a "spammer". Then, in December, the Wiki "spam robot" found out that there were too many links added, and announced it as "spam". Since then all my links were deleted by someone, and my Wiki "homepage" blocked so that I couldn't respond to accusations. Then I changed my nick into "F.N. Berg" and started to inform Wiki admins about the real aim of my link additions: to serve the world with a lot of gemstone images!

You say "The information present in your webpage is already covered in more detail by the information on this page and is references..." Let me explain why I still think that my links were a useful addition to these mineral / gemstone pages: On all Wiki pages which deal with gemstones or their minerals (like sapphire, ruby, rare gems etc.) one can only see the mineral data, perhaps sometimes enhanced with one gem image. The links show only websites which provide mineral data and mineral images. No faceted gemstones images which surely are of interest of Wiki users. Therefore I thought it would be helpful to add links to Wiki mineral and gemstone pages so that Wiki users can see a lot of faceted gems - in addition to the Wiki images!

No "driving up visits to your site..." because I do my site for free, for educational purposes! I pay my website traffic costs myself, no sponsor, no asking for financial contributions like many other sites.

Therefore I think that the deletion of all my external links was unjust and not in the Wiki founder's sense.

F.N. Berg (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Australodelphis

On the front page on March 7.

Gatoclass (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your updates on my subpage.

Thank you for fixing the link, but I would prefer if you do not edit my subspace again. Instead, contact me about it on my talkpage. Thank you. Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright; you didn't know, and were only trying to help. I can't say that I wouldn't have done the same thing. And I must thank you for your tip on the Paleobiology Database! Thanks! Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad...

Sorry about the red links thing, I didn't know... My bad. EscapeByMusic 02:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EscapeByMusic (talkcontribs)

Allegations versus facts

Hi... I've reverted this header change. Please do not revert me back, as surely you can agree that the original header is an allegation, not a fact, and it's a bit of well-poisoning as well. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that the Linked instances of Montana's responses that Una posted DO qualify as ad homonym and so she WAS biting both Buttermilk and Una. The change should be noted in the AN/I. I am also very much aware that Una come on strong BUT in my opinion many of her suggestions are dismissed out of hand as "just Una trying to create chaos again" (to paraphrase Montana. This is NOT conducive to getting things done and many times from you do not seem to be responding with a open opinion. In the current AN/I several posters have posted instances that have NOTHING too do with Una but EVERYTHING too do with poor behavior on Montana's part. However the concentration is ONLY on the fact that Una made the initial post and everything else is being completely ignored. I have asked a number of times for feedback regarding the other incidences and Montana's own admission of "snippy" reactions. THESE are the issues which always seem to be ignored! See why it looks very much like a biased opionion from several respondents. The two people who have not had any experience on the matter stated that htere are deeper issues which should be looked at.--Kevmin (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the quotes Una linked:

"An accurate statement of the facts is not an ad hominem attack, and you know it. I archived about two years of chat, mostly resolved, or else just a rehash of the same eternal arguments. I left the current discussion since 1/1/09. You are just out to cause your usual round of mayhem as usual, and I suggest you take it elsewhere. A couple months ago you were getting after me for criticizing your advocacy of fringe, abusive riding methods and bit use, now you're egging on the animal rights crowd. It's clear you have no real interest in this topic other than your usual pattern of stirring the pot and I'm sick of your behavior. Montanabw(talk) 03:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

"Una, in light of your past history, which involves single-handedly causing chaos and destruction almost everywhere you go, (which has resulted in more than one AN/I filed on you, in addition to the one you filed on me that backfired and bit you in the backside) I find that remark amusing. Normally you shut down progress on any article you work on until everyone agrees with you. Once again, You and Buttermilk both have your little POV fork to play with that I have utterly given up on having any role in whatsoever. On this article, I would appreciate a true consensus, which means ALL major factions get a chance to weigh in. As to you, Buttermilk and myself, that means yes, if all three of us agree, then we probably have a sufficient consensus of the major viewpoints. Right now I am only able to get online here a couple times a week, and while I am willing to collaborate, I would very much appreciate that major edits be made with consensus. Hence, again, Buttermilk has made massive edits without consensus which I now am reviewing and fixing. See you in a few days. Montanabw(talk) 02:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

"Buttermilk, please just go play with your own article. If you think you have some outstanding work there, PROPOSE it for inclusion here. Some of it is getting to the point where it would be a good addition here and it could be considered. In the meantime, show some respect for those of us who have been in the trenches of wikipedia for a while. I've been on wiki for three years now, I have over 12,000 edits. Leadership is EARNED, not claimed. Montanabw(talk) 03:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

Could you please explain how the boled sections are NOT Ad Hominym attacks? I admit that na does not respond well BUT these responses from Montana are NOT isolated incidence but happen whenever anyone does something which Montana does not approve of. In the work I did with her on some of the equine articles she implied that I was making personal attacks when I responded critically too some of her posts. She retracted the statements when I clarified what I was saying but this is a typical response from Montana. She will make an accusatory threatening or down right mean (as with buttermilk) statement and then apologize quickly if when called on it. I feel this type of editing behavior is NOT good for long term editing. I can point to several instances where she has chased off knowledgeable editors who would have made valuable contributions to articles because of her imposing my way or the highway attitude.--Kevmin (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see them as ad hominem, but that's a difference in opinion we have. However, and more importantly, I also don't claim there is no issue there at all. If Montanabw is problematic enough to actually be a problem, an RfC or other dispute resolution should be pursued. I don't deny that. Do you deny that there is a problem with Una, that whereever she goes, there are issues, controversy, unsupportable moves, acrimony, and so forth? In short, disruption? Una is by far the bigger problem here, and until you acknowledge and admit she is a problem that needs attention, you will not have any credibility with me. Take that for what it's worth, we're both repeating ourselves now I think, absent any change in your position. ++Lar: t/c 19:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not deny that she is controversial, I just don't think that any action she takes on issues like Montana's behavior should be automatically reversed as "Una trying to create problems", which is what has happened here. You yourself have just admitted that Montana has a problem but have gone on to say that because it was Una that brought it to AN/I the issue should be dropped without ANY talk. That is not an appropriate response to an issue. One should look at each situation separately and not "o its Una lets just ignore it".--Kevmin (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying any of those things. But repeatedly bringing Montanabw to AN/I is not the way to address the issue, and Una is not the person to address it. Which she has been told before already. Start an RfC on Montanabw if you feel strongly about it. One has been started (in draft form) on Una already. It will be interesting to see how that comes out. ++Lar: t/c 21:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your recover of Tantalite-Fe,Mn and Columbite-Fe,Mn

Thank you for copyediting. Could you please explain reinstating ferrotantalite, etc. articles. Off course, those Fe, Mn- rich varieties of tantalite and columbite are fully legitimate. No question. But. Their articles are much too poor and there is no manpower to keep all 3 articles Fe-tantalite, Mn-tantalite and tantalite up to date. Thats why I merged them (same for columbite) into one main article, keeping all (Fe-, Mn-) names preserved. So, why did you revert that? After removing my redirects, the reader will not get to the main article (e.g. tantalite, and will only see the poorer versions (e.g. ferrotantalite). Best regards. NIMSoffice (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template state

Hi,

I've modified Template:Manganese minerals so that the state parameter is still adjustable, but is collapsed by default.

Hyperdeath(Talk) 10:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the 50cm length off of the Aphthoroblattina article, and you said on the talk page that you found on some reliable sources that the length didn't come close to 50cm. If you find the proper length, could you put it on the article (with a reference of course)? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Sloths vs MegalonychidaeTwo-toed sloth

I have undone your reversal of my edit to Megalonychidae There are seven families of sloths, all under the subordor or Folivora. These seven families are:

The only members of Megalonychidae‎ are the two-toed sloths, which is why I have redirected the page to that article. Please be clear that current classification shows that the Megatheriidae (two-toed sloths) are a different family from the extinct families of ground sloths. 14Ave (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Megalonychidae‎ talk page--Kevmin (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italic titles

Hi, thanks for your efforts to correctly italicise titles! I just wanted to point out that in some cases, such as Charniodiscus, you could have achieved the same results by correcting the format of the genus name in the taxobox - with the added benefit of fixing the taxobox at the same time. In other cases, e.g. Charnia, the title was already italicised without the title! Best wishes, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prionomyrmex vs. Nothomyrmecia. Trying to conceal published information?

Why reversing the correct name Prionomyrmex to its older synonym Nothomrmecia? The reference by Ward & Brady (2003) given by you is obsolete and was demonstrated wrong by two unanswered papers by Baroni Urbani:

Baroni Urbani C. 2005. Phylogeny and biogeography of the ant subfamily Prionomyrmecinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Ann. Mus. civ. St. Nat. "G. Doria", Genoa 96: 581-595.

Baroni Urbani C. 2008. Orthotaxonomy and parataxonomy of true and presumed bulldog ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Doriana 8, N. 358: 1-10.

Without documented refutation of the arguments by Baroni Urbani Prionomyrmex is the sole valid name.87.18.66.188 (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Clarification

I just wanted to thank you for your help with the Dire Wolf on the Alsatian Shepalute page. Nice additions! shepaluteprez 9:17, 5 August 2009

Taxa names

This is just a clarification of taxon names formatting. Please remember that only taxa of genus level and lower are ever italicized. All taxa above the genus level are regular font. --Kevmin (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the note on formatting. I'm going back to correct all errors. Noles1984 (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selenite etc

Hi Kevmin. I think I agree with you about merging Selenite (mineral) into Gypsum, especially if we also merge the relevant parts of Alabaster as well. --Una Smith (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Una, I agree the gypsum related sections of Alabaster should also get merged into the Gypsum article. The selenite (mineral) article is in reality just repetition of information from the gypsum article and unreferenced information.--Kevmin (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you created the page with Ptychodontidae. I know the bottom row of teeth are Ptychodus, but the top row certainly doesn't. It looks more like a Squalicorax sp. than a Ptychodus. Can you confirm this? --Spotty 11222 15:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spotty11222, it took a fair amount of searching but I found a pdf of the original paper and confirmed the upper two teeth are indeed Squalicorax curvatus teeth (in the paper as Corax curvatus). I have updated the description of the image in commons. --Kevmin (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK! Thanks for taking the time! --Spotty 11222 18:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My Pleasure! --Kevmin (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed deletion of Dieter Korn

The article Dieter Korn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No claim to notability - no references on which claim may be based - and even uncertain if a historical or current figure (i.e. whether WP:BLP applies). Not edited since 2007.

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming Conventions. RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.

This is to inform you that removing exceptions to the use of "most Common Names" as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sapphire

Given the seriousness of cut'n'paste copyvios, I think it was inappropriate for you to restore the material I deleted - much less to demand a "reference" when I'd provided a clear one (US Patent 6447938). I've done the deletion over, and added a URL for the patent abstract, from which the deleted material had been taken word-for-word. I hope that'll satisfy you. Do note that I'm not claiming the patent was infringed as a patent (which would raise plenty of issues, of course); I'm saying that the actual words of the patent document were cut and pasted. Copyright, not patent, violation. Even if patent documents were public domain from a copyright perspective (which I'm pretty sure they are not) it would be inappropriate use of the source material. Those paragraphs don't even make any sense in the context of the Wikipedia article where they were pasted, where it starts out talking about the general idea of silicon-on-sapphire IC technology and then in mid-sentence switches to the specifics of "the present invention." 216.59.252.65 (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Mammals Tag

The removal from the European Otter seems to be a mistake on my part.I thank you for the revert, however in saying that it would have also been nice if you could have rated the article. In regards to the Giraffa jumae it is better suited to the other wikiproject scopes. Once again if you made the effort to revert do you not think u could have spent a further few moments rating the artcle????, Thats the problem i am facing, 300+ articles that were tagged and never rated. I completed around 150 tags last night so forgive me if i make 2 or 3 mistakes, maybe if some people spent more time helping and less time complaining it would work better. ZooPro 23:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't rate that articles because I do not rate articles in general, either ones I write or ones I edit. I do not feel I have enough knowledge or experience to make the decision on how important and what quality an article is. Please also try to remain civil, Thanks. --Kevmin (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genera & species

Hi Noles, Just a reminder that wp: paleontology is for extinct taxon articles to stop at the genus level and for species levels to redirect to the genus. Please merge the information in teh Hipparion species articles you created into the genus page and make the species pages redirects.

Thanks, I've been informed incorrectly and have seen many done with more than one species. Repairs (redirects) done and increasing data on genera article instead. Noles1984 (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paleontology vs Archaeology

Yup, closer reading was required. The catchall "Natural history museum" is the best choice. Thanks for catching that, though I see it's close to home for you. Looks like a cool place. dm (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Araucarioxylon arizonicum

Hi. As nominator, you may close the request to move Araucarioxylon arizonicum. Would you like to do that? Once it closes, I can request that User:Una Smith/Araucarioxylon be moved. --Una Smith (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMA?

IMA sets all gemological terms??? Hmm yeah.. I'm going to need a citation that. I'm a GIA grad and I've never even heard of the IMA. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say GIA supersedes them. --98.232.181.201 (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]