User talk:Snowmanradio

Helpful links

If you need help, check out Getting Help below, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing!

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

House Martin

The source says has " has bred", which implies rarity, as does "there are records", sorry if that sounds like weasel words. You are welcome to reword, but "Some HMs stay in N and SA ." makes it sound like a regular occurrence, which I don't think is justified. Anyway, it's been promoted now, sorry that after all the work you put in you still didn't feel able to support the nomination, but thanks anyway, Jimfbleak (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to the article, I did not think that it was appropriate for me to judge the article. Snowman (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poicephalus taxonomy

Unfortunately, it appears this is a case where a quote of mine fits: I wouldn't recommend making any taxonomic changes unless knowing they are based on solid published evidence, which unfortunately can be a bit difficult to judge for non-biologists and alike. Disregarding that the used common name, Un-cape Parrot, did give me a bit of a laugh (it would be easier to convince me about conure), there is a problem: The genetic evidence published so far is pretty far from being bulletproof - assuming we're dealing with the biological species concept anyway. This is also something several of the main references that argue for the split say clearly that they stray somewhat from (in fact, on more than one occasion they do the big "no-no" in taxonomy, and use the endangered status of P. robustus as an argument for splitting off the commoner northern taxa). So far they've shown a divergence of 1.2-1.5% in mtDNA between robustus and suahelicus/fuscicollis. Normally, you wouldn't even consider talking about species status unless finding a divergence of at least 1.8% in mtDNA (and even that is typically considered a value where claims of different species can be questioned unless supported by other data). When combined with comments such as that they've shown that suahelicus and fuscicollis are closer to each other than they are to robustus and therefore it is correct to treat them as separate species, any serious biologist should see flashing red lights. I'd bet genetic evidence could show that I'm closer to my uncle than I am to some random person I met on the street, but I certainly wouldn't claim that's an argument for treating us as different species! Of note that South African authorities (which are involved in this case), being the direct opposite of the main Australian authorties, commonly are very fast when it comes splitting - even when the published evidence is, let's just say, questionable (think Cape Gull and you get the idea). Still I do think this split into two biological species is likely to be "good", but the published evidence only just manage to tip the bucket in that direction when combining all the data on genetics, morphology, vocal data, ecology and biogeography. I've heard that better genetic data is on the way, but until any such has been published I presume it falls outside the material that can be used as a basis for articles on wiki. I'll be away for a period, but for now here a few references that deal with this case:

Clancey, P.A. 1997. The Cape Parrot: an additional valid species. Honeyguide 43: 61–62.
Perrin, M. R. 2005. A review of the taxonomic status and biology of the Cape Parrot Poicephalus robustus, with reference to the Brown-necked Parrot P. fuscicollis fuscicollis and the Grey-headed Parrot P. f. suahelicus. Ostritch. 76(3&4): 195–205.
Solms, L. 1999. Phylogenetic relationships of the three subspecies of the Cape Parrot, Poicephalus robustus. BSc Honours project, University of Pretoria.
Wirminghaus, J. O., C. T. Downs, C. T. Symes, & M. R. Perrin. 2002. Taxonomic relationships of the subspecies of the Cape Parrot Poicephalus robustus (Gmelin). Journal of Natural History 36(3): 361–378.

Rabo3 (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super. It is more complicated that I thought, and I have made the Un-cape Parrot page much more speculative pending further data. Snowman (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruptured Duck

Snow, I think the actual article has now disappeared in the merger although the best place to see information appears to be Ted W. Lawson. This is a good question to bring up the WP:Aviation Group. Take it there and I will ride "shotgun." FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

ok, I have started a discussion in a new section on the page "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation". Snowman (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:BoxCrawler

The bot isn't malfunctioning it just doesn't account for random extra spaces, All such errors will be fixed next run. Thanks for letting me know! Adam McCormick (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the mean time it is very likely causing people extra work, it is a problem. It should have been tested against these sort of spaces. Snowman (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman, The bot has been run over ten times and you're the first one to ever complain. It's already been stopped. There's blame to go around here but that's not the point. It's a minor problem and I am working to fix the issue and build-in a fix right now. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot was clearly causing problems, and I reported it (call that complaining if you want to). No one seemed to notice the message I left on the bot talk page. I do not know why others have not reported problems, but I guess that is probably due to expediency. I guess that you can fix and test it, but I am glad that it has been stopped until it is fit for purpose. Snowman (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked this discussion from the incidents page. Snowman (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It just would have been nice to know that you reported it, or where you reported it. BoxCrawler runs for several days at a time and i can't be watching it every second. I'm sorry if the changes you noticed offended you, but of over 1100 edits today the two pages you list are the only disputed changes. Adam McCormick (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a notice at "User talk:BoxCrawler", where there is a notice that indicates that it should be blocked if it is malfunctioning or doing harm. I think that you were off line at that time, and you did not respond until 2 hrs later and that was after I had reported the problem to administrators who could block it. An administrator reviewed its edits and thought that it was unsatisfactory too. Perhaps, you should be pleased to have this problem raised when it became apparent earlier rather than later. On the bright side, I hope to see the bot function better after the script is modified. Snowman (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, an admin decided it wasn't a big issue. I stopped the bot and fixed it, and started it running again. I am glad you raised the issue but I think you overestimated the scope of the problem. The problem has been corrected and the bot has been set to correct the syntax that caused the issues. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The administrators discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive367#BoxCrawler. Snowman (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion

Hi, thanks for your edits to this dab page; you might like to read WP:MOSDAB if you are interested in working on dab pages - there are lots of "rules" about how to do it. :) Abtract (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ruptured Duck (B-25) and Ruptured Duck (aircraft)

Hi, I was actually in the process of merging their history when I realized that the new page creation wasn't a cut & paste move at all. :( The new content of The Ruptured Duck (B-25) isn't a copy of what was at Ruptured Duck (aircraft) before the redirection, you see, thus the history of these two pages need to exist independently. I've undone my history merging and hopefully have fixed my mess. Sorry for any confusion caused. Regards, --PeaceNT (talk) 12:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, no merge was performed here. I managed to move the histories back to the exact place they originally belonged to. :) Regards, --PeaceNT (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that that subpage exists. I'll see what can be done about it shortly. Best, --PeaceNT (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History merged. :) Let me know if there is anything more that needs attention. Take care, --PeaceNT (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shocked - Maghie

Hi,

I would have preferred to have sent this to you as a private e-mail - but it seems you do accept e-mails. So, I have to ignore my need to be well mannered and respond to you publicly.

I must say that I am rather disappointed that an editor with your expertise would be so rude to a newcomer - totally disregarding the Wikipedia rules of 'Do not Bite the newcomer'. No one likes spammers including me - but surely you should check out your facts before accusing people. And you should also give them the chance to read their first mail and figure out how to navigate this system before threatening them.

I was not trying to promote my site or increase my rankings. I was trying to share information learned from years of real life observation on a topic that is not well known on many species of birds that wikipedia has very scanty information about. (information I myself was desperately searching for before I commenced my research.) I apologise for my error. I have deleted the remaining links and will leave the hole in the wikipedia information untouched. (I did not notice all the other external links being discussed in the article talk pages. It would also be a huge time consuming exercise for the editors and myselfto do that for nearly 36 species and more on an on-going basis.)

It seems Wikipedia has still a long way to go in making genuine contributors welcome. I hope other users are treated with more politeness and consideration in the future.

Kind regards, Maghie (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Maghie[reply]

It seems to me that your only contributions to date are to add external links to your website from various bird pages; see WP:EL which is about the adding external links. You are welcome to improve the wiki and make constructive edits, but if you continuously add spam links you will be blocked. Snowman (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Loos box

Thanks for cleaning up my mistakes I will do better. EraserGirl (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did fine. Snowman (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually rereading her all her autobiographies, so I won't JUST have the ONE reference book to cite. That's a problem with these dead women, no one writes about them much. I had to temporarily abandon my rewrite of Elsa Maxwell, as the only books I could find about Elsa Maxwell were BY Elsa Maxwell and that is hardly an objective opinion. EraserGirl (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Peter Stephens" persondata

Hi. There are honestly no more details about Stephens than stand in the article today. Anything more goes WP:TRIVIA. Certainly nothing more than b. England, d. England. Sorry. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: TW warnings

Fair point. I tend to just count the number of warnings and put in the next one (although, I confess to miscounting in this case). I hadn't noticed that his first warning was a "level 3". Lordjeff06 (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes rapidly advance the warnings when the vand is blatant, often going straight to a 2nd level warning, which does not have the "welcome" text. Snowman (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is all well and appropriate, although I don't think any of the warnings had been made by you. All I'm saying is that, while I appreciated your comment, I didn't intentionally not escalate the warnings; I just didn't read so good. Lordjeff06 (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did my part and I reported it, as he already had a final warning. Snowman (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for your vigilance. Lordjeff06 (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

Copyedit from my talk page: "Would this sort of time line be any use on any of the long complicated biographies you are working on; see the time line on "John Vanbrugh". Snowman (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)" Hi Snow (BTW, send me an email, I would like your opinion on a vexing problem I have come across in a series of tenditious edits.), as for the guide, it's not bad, they kinda goofed up a bit on the references but IMHO, nearly everyone in WickyWacky land does the sme. FWIW, I do appreciate your contributions. Bzuk (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

"tenditions" is not defined in this wiki, and it is not recognised by my spell checker in American language mode. There are some other phrases that may not translate very well from the American to the UK English. Can use use another word instead of "tenditious"? because I am not sure if it is a proper word or not. Snowman (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the help on various articles on Coventry, and in particular Finham Park School. Is there any chance you can e-mail me? Breadsticks.rock (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to join the wikiproject Coventry? Anyone can express an interest at: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Coventry, and I hope to get the project going soon. I have not ever used wiki email, but I generally use the talk pages for the discussion. Snowman (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, I'll sign up. I was going to ask you; in what district do you live in? It's just, everytime I see a picture of a place that i live fairly near to, it seems so be you who's taken the photo. Maybe it's just a coincidence.. Breadsticks.rock (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will see that one of my user boxes indicates that I live in England. Do you have any photographs to contribute? Snowman (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the district in Coventry. And no, I don't tend to take photographs that much (due to my rubbish 4MP camera, and the fact that you've already taken most of the ones i would. lol). Breadsticks.rock (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confidential. Snowman (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Film dabs

I'm not entirely comfortable with the way in which I recently dealt with the film wls that linked to the wrong pages, i.e. creating a piped link to an as yet unwritten film article. Is there a better, or accepted way of doing it like creating a dab page and then linking to the proposed film article? BTW, I've just seen this!!! --Red Sunset 19:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which wikilinks? Name the page or pages. Snowman (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Barbarian for example in "Film credits" on the Anita Loos page. --Red Sunset 20:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with the red links that you made. Does there need to be a dab page called "film name"? is another question. If one needs to be made, then you could make one? I spent quite a long time making dabs for "The Mistake" to include "The Mistake (film)". The Barbarian just about needs a dab, but I would start with a more obvious one for your first one, unless you are interested in that particular dab. A dab page would be useful if you made the film article and wanted to show people where it was. Snowman (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was mainly concerned that should someone create the particular film article, but not call it by precisely the same name as the piped link, then it wouldn't connect, but if what I've done is OK then I'll leave it at that. --Red Sunset 20:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean now, and I have thought that too sometimes. Sometimes I made a quick stub for the redlink. However, leave it to the editor that makes the new page; hopeful they will look at the obvious pages, and do a wiki-search too. There are some other suffixes on that page "Film name (not written yet)". Snowman (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Presson Allen

Finally finished my first draft of Jay Presson Allen, I am asking you and Red Sunset to be my guest to shred it. Beware I was smoking crack pretty heavily when I wrote it, so there may be small sections of gibberish mixed in. I can fix small things but if you think it needs extensive revision, I have to step away for a few days. I am going back to correct the citations on Anita Loos and add some more. I am still waiting for that damn Lenore Coffee autobiography to come in. EraserGirl (talk) 03:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I learn something new every day - I was aware of this short cut. {{refbegin}}. I try to incorporate your corrections retroactively. EraserGirl (talk) 13:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, one issue you raised conversationally needs putting into context: please do not joke about smoking stuff, especially dangerous addictive stuff. I guess that it is your sense of humour and that you do not smoke stuff; nevertheless, if you are smoking crack, I would recommend that you should seek help from the appropriate professionals in your part of the world or ask your doctor to explain the health risks of this. I should add that smoking crack is illegal in UK where I live, and it is also likely to be illegal where you live (where ever that is). I would never approve, encourage, or support smoking crack. Snowman (talk) 14:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that kind of self deprecating exaggeration humor is very common in America. Obviously, someone who did such, couldn't DO this type of work. I guess the joke didn't travel well. I am incorporating your formatting for citations into the Jay Presson Allen article, but I need clarification on its usage. I am loathe to include books with scant information into the list of bibliographic items. Sometimes only one line of text was useful, and some of the footnotes are from other media. Can you eyeball it and suggest corrections. Thank you. EraserGirl (talk) 14:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, perhaps it is a joke that is better said rather than written down. We have self deprecating humour here too and some stand-up comedians specialise in it. I think I would have found your joke funnier if it was on the television, or in a play. Getting back on task; if one line of text was useful and the book was a worthy work. then I do not see why the ref should not be used. It would be essential to use the page number, range of page numbers (up to a range of about 10 pages), or chapter. This is because some people might like to check the facts quickly, and it is not easy to do that when you quote a whole 300 page book without the page numbers. There is ref formating specially designed for many types of media; books, journals, DVDs, radio, and so on. When in "edit page mode" there is a list of the templates the page uses at the bottom of the page, on clicking on the links you can see all the rules about the template. So you can see all the rules about the "cite book template" and so on. Red is very good at copy editing, grammar and spelling, so I will not attempt to do any of this unless it is really obvious or the automatic software spots a problem. I know what you mean about retuning to what you have written after a few days to spot mistakes. Without expecting you to concentrate on the page too much, could you watch the pages of your film related pages, because I might need to ask some factual questions about something I am not sure about by leaving a question on the relevant talk page (or here depending on what it is). Snowman (talk) 15:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read 8 different obituaries and the cause of her death has been withheld. The was a very private person, she rarely gave interviews I could only find three, and I still can't get a hold of a copy the one she did for the LA TIMES. EraserGirl (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why? Privacy sounds like part of her character, and it might be the sort of thing to include, if there is a reference for that. Snowman (talk) 17:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no direct reference to her maintaining her privacy, my conclusion is based on the lack of evidence to the contrary. Despite what the media portrays most American's prefer to be private people, and those such as Allen, wealthy New York elite are some of the most militantly private people. I am not really surprised that the COD is withheld, I am however surprised at people's interest in it; at eighty four, she could have died from anything at all, even the flu. Unless a death is somehow publicly relevant, like a murder or accident, I am not sure medically related deaths are any business of ours. Does that make me a bad biographer? On the other hand I am fascinated that Frederica Sagor Maas is still alive at 107! EraserGirl (talk) 17:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peoples illnesses affect their lives, and knowing about their illness helps to understand them. Out of 1000 people that reach the age of 100 years, only one will become a supercentenarian, 110 years. Their is a wikipage on supercentenarian. Snowman (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I found no evidence that she suffered from a lifelong or prolonged illness, but then I didn't find much about her last few years at all. I will have to keep looking. EraserGirl (talk) 18:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography

This is what happens, you keep answering me, I keep asking your advice. I want to add a wikified filmography table to Helen Gibson, but it is large, I don't want it to overwhelm the article. Would the best way to do this be to add a new article? it seems extreme considering her obscurity. Is it possible to add a subpage to an article? Thanks. I am still learning how best to format the table for maximum efficiency. EraserGirl (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the one mostly about The Hazards of Helen. Snowman (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I have been experimenting in my own personal idaho. Do you think it's a bit over the top? EraserGirl (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It contains a lot of detail. If she was the first American stunt woman, the table would probably make a wikipage. But it must have references (or one reference that gives the hole list), because the deletionists might want to delete it. Anyway, do not be disappointed if some one says that it is not notable; you will have to justify the page, but I guess that happens to everyone who makes new pages from time to time. Do you want it to be one table or two tables with the episodes of "H of H" in a separate table? I think that it would be a linked page - sometimes called a daughter page. I guess that it is too long for the main article. I think "subpage" might be confused with a sub-directory and wiki articles are never in a sub-directory. Snowman (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I guess I will keep it to myself. No one else gives reference for filmographies and I have seen some very questionable listings on wikipedia. EraserGirl (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was wrong about filmographies needing references. What is good is that a lot of the films already have wikipages, which I did not put in the balance before. I guess that it would make a wikipage. Snowman (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could condense all the Hazards of Helen's down to one entry and just make sure that the complete list is attached to the Hazards of Helen page. Without that, the list becomes a reasonable size. And really most of her appearances are well documented in the cowboy film and serial reference books - only a few come of of nowhere. I am having an argument with IMDB about adding High, Wide, and Handsome - she was uncredited, but I have a picture of her WITH the director Mamoulian ON SET and IN COSTUME and they are still giving me a hard time. It will be a while before I added it anyway, I am still learning the formatting for wikitables and I want to eliminate the year duplication, etc . . . Thanks tons. Red Sunset has been a taskmaster teaching me WP:citation formatting, I learned Turabian and Chicago, so I have to unlearn what I know. You know? EraserGirl (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no set format for citations, and there are several different formating styles that are correct on the wiki, but it would be best to be consistent within an article. I use the cite template which I think most people use. Red uses scratch formating (without a template), but it is not used much except on some aircraft pages. I think that it is better to use the cite format. I think that the year would be useful to keep in the table for sorting - you could make it into a sortable table so that you click and then the table is sorted according the the column clicked - look for the special mark at the top of the table. Look at the one on the "Blood type" page and copy the "wikisort" bit. Perhaps, she was just watching, or turned up too late. Snowman (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image error

I seem to be filling your archive, I could bother someone else if you like. 8) I made a typo when uploading an image, Image:Claraberenger.jpg are there other ways to rename the image, besides reloading it correctly and flagging the old one for deletion? Thanks. EraserGirl (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image names can not be changed other than by uploading another. Snowman (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll fix it right after I finish posting the article. EraserGirl (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is sometimes a chance to change the name of an image by uploading it to wikicommons with a better name. This image in question is a fair use one which are not allowed on wikicommons. Take an interest in wiki commons, if you are going to upload any images that are your own work, such as photographs that you have taken yourself. Snowman (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paisley image

The original is already in the commons see Image:Ian Paisley.JPG, thanks --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, there is something wrong with the link on the cropped image page. Snowman (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure it may be better to ask User:MaxM[1] who originally uploaded the picture. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Snowman (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

user talk pages

Am I not allowed to delete things from my talk page? EraserGirl (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not know the wiki rules on this, but I guess that deletion from your talk page without an appropriate edit summary might be seen as deceptive. It is a wiki guideline to always write an edit summary. Perhaps, deleting comments about your errors and leaving good comments might also give the wrong impression. I think it is ok to delete vandalism or something that should not have been put there. Snowman (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well I did read all the introductory rules, and since there is NO actual deletion taking place. You can read the bot notices in the page history. This entire conversation is moot. I wasn't deleting BAD warnings, I deleted an irrelevant one. The image with the typo is to be deleted, ergo bot comments telling me anything about it are irrelevant. I just don't like very long pages and have been shunting things off to the archive, regardless of whether it makes me LOOK good. I appreciate everything you have tried to teach me, but I don't tell you what to do with your user page. EraserGirl (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a talk page. Snowman (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Rattle Infobox

Hello,

I really don't understand Opus33 user reverting and deleting (with ridiculous arguments) the infobox on Sir Simon's page. You have my support to restore it (BTW, I managed it to get his foto from the Pressestelle) --Wikinaut (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add something like this on the talk page for the Simon Rattle article? Snowman (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added this on Talk:Simon Rattle

@User:Opus33 and @ all

Strong support of restoring the infobox

Hello, I really don't understand Opus33 user reverting and deleting the infobox on Sir Simon's page. You all have my support to restore it. (BTW, I managed it to get his foto from the Pressestelle, do you want me to remove it now ? Certainly not.). The infobox is of value for visitors coming along and gives a first impression. If you don't like the infobox layout, then edit the template and add further information; the mere deletion after more than one year of presence of this box is something want I regard as aggressive deletion of unwanted material. In this case, the infobox was of value and should be restored a.s.a.p --Wikinaut (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Medicine Collaboration of the Fortnight

Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week.
This week Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was selected.
Hope you can help…

NCurse _work 00:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eastriggs, Dumfriesshire

Thanks for your comment - and for the Barnstar, both much appreciated! I believe that the munitions factory was also known as Gaitlebridge but a Google search on Gaitlebridge turns up only two hits, which contribute little. I do know that there was a Post Office called Gaitlebridge, opened 1 April 1918 and closed 5 August 1919. But that information is from an unpublished postal history listing (and fairly peripheral) so I shan't be posting it on the Eastriggs page. It might, however, be useful as a lead if someone is searching local sources. NinetyCharacters (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A photograph of the now disused railway station would be good too. Snowman (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lilian's Lovebird image request

Check out the Lilian's Lovebird de:Erdbeerköpfchen at the German Wikipedia —a few other language wikis also use that ":commons:image:Beki2.jpg" same image — even though its description in commons reads "Agapornis fischeri". That probably doesn't help you much. Regards, El_C 18:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that and it is on commons. I think it is a Fischer's Lovebird as the name of the image suggests. The two are similar but Lilian's Lovebird has a green rump and the Fischer's Lovebird a blue rump, which is not shown on the photo. Thanks anyway. Snowman (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think it is? Snowman (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semiautomation

I tried the Magnus Tool to create Harry Froboess. I have left exactly as it was output. I am still writing the article and will finish it soon. But I am not sure the tool does much that I couldn't hardcode. Perhaps I am using it wrong. EraserGirl (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now i have a problem someone slapped a speedy deletion on it, within 3 minutes of its creation. I haven't even finished entering data. Is this some form of vandalism?EraserGirl (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So much for that page. It was deleted within a few minutes of its creation. Seems impetuous, perhaps they get points for being the first to delete things before they are created. I recreated the article stub with the material I lost when it was flagged in the midst of my edit. I didn't find the Magnus tool very helpful, it is faster for me to type everything straight onto the screen. Thank you for suggesting it, please let me know of any other shortcuts that you come across. I am hoping no one deletes the page again, I would hate to have to recreate it again. EraserGirl (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might find it more useful than that, but I was wrong over this point. You can still make the page again, but make sure you put references on it. Snowman (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chess set

Image:Chess set 4o06.jpg Is this chess set a St. George set or a Calvert (Northern Upright) set? I've added it to Staunton chess set, but I'm not sure which it is. Bubba73 (talk), 03:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not known what its design is called, but I am sure that it is not a Staunton chess set. I have seen this design on a television program about Egypt, but that might be a red herring. The black pieces are heavier than the white ones - I think that the black ones are ~~ivory~~ and the white ones are perhaps box wood. Snowman (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not a Staunton, but I was using it in the article on Staunton chess set in the section that is about the older styles. Ebony is heavier than boxwood, so ebony pieces are noticably heavier. Bubba73 (talk), 13:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the black pieces are ebony. Its current caption is "St George". Is that correct? Snowman (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, which is why I was asking. At first I thought it was a St. George, and I added that to the caption. However, I found this link and it looks like a cross between the two on the top. Most of the pieces look more like the St. George, but the rook is more like the Calvert. Bubba73 (talk), 17:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also added it to Chess piece. Bubba73 (talk), 17:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I bought the set secondhand and I suspect that is it very old, perhaps Edwardian or Victorian. The pieces are very well made. Unfortunately, it did not have a box with it. I wonder what the original box would have been like, but I guess that the box had padding because the pieces are not bashed about. I have got some smaller and more modern non-Staunton sets too, which I will examine again more carefully soon. I am glad that you like the photo. The board in the photo is modern and handmade. Why have you called the set a reproduction? Snowman (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said "reproduction" because it doesn't look like it is an origianal pre-1849 set. Maybe it should just say "St. George style". Is it an antique? Bubba73 (talk), 18:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no information on when or where it was made. Snowman (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks relatively new to me - the white wood looks darker after a few decades. But I've changed the captions. Bubba73 (talk), 18:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of the style of sets used before Staunton sets would be nice, say 1700-1849. Bubba73 (talk), 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a possible source of photos. Some of the St. George sets have rooks like yours, so now I'm convinced that it is a St. George. Bubba73 (talk), 01:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the antique white pieces on the website are still white-wood coloured. Sets similar to my old travel chess set are on the website too. Snowman (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My feelings are that the photo set generally has more features in common with the "Northern Upright" ("Edinburgh Upright" not "Calvert") style than any other. If it is an old set it has seen little use judging by the crispness and patina of the pieces, but in this instance it's hard to use colour as an aid to dating the set since colour rendition will vary with the graphics settings of individual monitors/screens. On my laptop the edging of the board in particular has a strange pale-purple/grey hue to it, which makes me wonder whether the "white" pieces are similarly tinted and in reality are more deeply golden, thus indicating a greater age. How do the image colours on your screen compare with the set itself Snowman? --Red Sunset 20:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The white pieces are darker than on my computer screen. They are a yellow-brown (almost golden) colour. The bottoms are not polished like the visible surfaces. The tops of one of the knights of each colour are removable for promoted pieces, which I did not think was a built-in design feature until I read the external websites that are linked above. The pieces are not weighted, and I am surprised how heavy they feel. The look antique to me, and I doubt if a reproduction would be made and polished so well. What wood to you think the white pieces are? Snowman (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case the set could be older than it first appears, and seems of very high quality. There are numerous woods that would be suitable for "white" pieces, and this set could possibly be boxwood or ash, or less-likely cherry or beech looking at the grain patterns although they are quite dense and therefore relatively heavy. I suppose the type of wood used would depend on where (country or region) the set was made and the indigenous trees. If the "black" pieces are ebony then it's not surprising that they're heavy, it's the only wood that sinks in water! --Red Sunset 21:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask how much it cost? An original antique one (before 1850) would be several hundred dollars, I think. For instance, ref198 [2] is 540GBP, about US$1100. Bubba73 (talk), 03:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to see the prices, but I do not want to divulge its price tag. Anyway, I took a photo of another one and uploaded it at Image:Jaques (London) antique portable chess set -oblique.JPG. I plan to upload some other views of it after I have cropped the images. Snowman (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you buy it as an antique? Bubba73 (talk), 16:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The portable set shows a lot of ware and is obviously an antique. Snowman (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rethink: I'm beginning to agree with the assertion that it is a St. George set, although there are elements of other styles. Do you have the white pawn that's missing in the portable chess set image? What material has been used to make the pieces?--Red Sunset 18:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I bought the portable set with the white (probably ivory) porn missing, and I did ask about that when I bought it. Snowman (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coventry project

There appears to be a problem with the Coventry project as the statistics are not been generated correctly, left an empty table on 22 March. Some of the categories also appear to be red-linked now so this may be the problem or it could be the new bot code. Any ideas what has happened? Keith D (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you listed the project as Coventry-related. I changed this to WikiProject Coventry, for consistency with all the other pages. It was probably a run with Coventry-related, but now it runs with WikiProject Coventry. I think that it is ok. If there are any category remnants left of Coventry-related, they need to be removed by deletion. Snowman (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mauritius Parakeet

I have racked up a taxonomy section; it can be left with brackets in the lists. The "new" specimen would allow to falsify the subspecies hypothesis if it is from Réunion. If it's too close genetically to historic skins of Mauritius parakeets one cannot tell whether the skin is form Réunion and they were subspecies, or whether the skin is from Mauritius.

So until the DNA data is theree and possibly even afterwards the choice is really dependent on whether one lumps or splits "almost-species" in general. But Wikipedia does not do either - we have redirects ;-) (I added the redirect for Psittacula eques echo which I think was the only one stil missing.

In any case, we now have an authoritative ref for both species and subspecies status. That should satisfy everyone. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, someone has recently put an image of a female Echo on flickr with a free copyright, so I have used it in the infobox. There are male Echo images, but they are copyrighted. Thanks for helping with the classification. Snowman (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agapornis

(Nice Psittacula photo!)

Well, preliminarily - I have not checked all the info there is (one paper seems to elude my attempts to find it):

The best guess is that Agapornis would form a distinct lineage with Loriculus. And what else? Micropsitta perhaps? Not Forpus, as it seems, but these are so distinct among the Neotropical guys that I'd think a hypothetical clade of short-tailed mini-parrots needs to be explicitly refuted. (I have not read all research; there may be one paper that actually checks for it)

In any case, there is amazingly little work being done on the issue. This Indonesian(?) guy(?) Dwi Astuti seems to be one of the hottest names around; I have seen most of the published work and Astuti's is far more in-depth than usual.

Systematically, the best way to deal with it seems to take the entire living diversity in a family (similar to what's being done with pigeons, doves, dodos) Psittacidae. Subfamilies would be Nestorinae, Cacatuinae, perhaps Loriinae and Arinae but this requires in-depth study. Because where you draw the cutoff point is crucial - it may be that it is better to have a HUGE number of subfamilies, basically make every major lineage of psittacines one. Or there may be a clear ecomorphological break between the basal and the advanced Psittacidae, in which case one would want to draw the line there and treat the lesser groupings as tribes.

What is clear is that we need the family rank to accomodate those prehistoric "proto-parrots", or better "para-parrots" as these were not very much like parrots at all - Pseudasturidae etc. Whereas the living parrots, lories, cockatoos and nestors all share highly characteristic apomorphies and as a whole stand apart from their Paleogene relatives.

The names Loriculini and Loriculinae are available for the (to be verified but probable) clade containing Agapornis. That genus is not very close to Loriculus, but still they consistently group, whereas their closest relatives switch merrily depending on how you analyze the same data. But they seem to be part of a out-of-Melanesia radiation which also brought about any or all of Aprosmictus, Psittrichas and Lorius.

If one says "Lorini is in Psittacinae", one would almost certainly have to say "Agapornis is in Loriculini in Psittacinae". But if one says "Arinae are very close relatives of Psittacinae", the question whether Loriculini or Loriculinae should be used cannot (I think) be answered at present.

(There may be an easy preliminary solution to Psittaciformes systematics which requires little change, accomodates about any conceivable future change easily, and is very nice insofar that anyone can then tell the affiliations of a psittaciform at a single glance: draw the line where the Dyck texture evolved, and use Cacatuinae and Nestorinae, and Psittacinae contianing Loriini, Arini, Loriculini, Psittacini, etc. The references would be

HBW as baseline
de Kloet & de Kloet (2005), updating the nestors to a very distinct lineage, part of the initial radiation and thus on equal rank with the cockatoos
Waterhouse (2006), justifying that unlike in HBW all living Psittaciformes are placed in a single family.

But I have yet to ponder over this for some time.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to think about that for some time too. Snowman (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot - Lilian's Lovebird - but I see you already figured that one out. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polytelini

Briefly, the group of large parakeets/smallish long-tailed parrots that inhabit Wallacea and the surrounding regions (like Australia). Basically as it says in Polytelis - they are part of an ill-defined group that also includes Psittaculini and Platycercini. Aprosmictus and Alisterus for example would also seem to belong there, but Tanygnathus is already closer to Psittacula. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No user page

Most IP pages do not have user pages - and few even have talk pages. I normally move any discussion directed to me to the user talk page of the user involved so that I can find it again. This is a dial up and the specific IP address changes frequently, and is shared by many other users. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pelican

I think its a virtually full breeding plumage Pacific subspecies Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis californicus. I didn't recognise it, but it looks spot on with David Sibley's picture. See this and this. Jimfbleak (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aviculture

Hi Snowmanradio, I'm a pigeon fancier from Rochester, Michigan in the United States. I'm very interested in working on filling out the aviculture info on Wikipedia whether that be as a subproject or as a task force. User:Sting_au is also interested in filling out the aviculture articles. Just thought you'd like to know that there are other folks here who think that Aviculture does deserve a subproject of its own. --OnorioCatenacci (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can register an interest at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Aviculture and if there is enough interest an aviculture article can be started. Snowman (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have registered my interest. Since you seem to be much more wiki-knowledgeable than am I, what level of interest is needed to start? --OnorioCatenacci (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five or more people. Snowman (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery bird

It's a Buff-necked Ibis Theristicus caudatus, Jimfbleak (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Black-faced Ibis looks better Jimfbleak (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I guess you are still not speaking to me. That's fine, but really you could have just told me that I uploaded the wrong size image. Anyway I fixed it now, how do I get that notice removed, so it doesn't get deleted. Image:Vera caspary.jpg EraserGirl (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is will need to be deleted, because it is still in the file history. Snowman (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So asking me to fix it was just an exercise? I can add the new one as a new file and detach the old one from the article and then when it gets deleted it won't matter. EraserGirl (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you gave a new fair use image a different name, the new one could be used on the page and the old one will be removed behind the scenes. Snowman (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I was obtuse, that was exactly what I proposed. EraserGirl (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did suggest it; I was just repeating it in my own words for clarity. Snowman (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~why the repeat warning?~~ EraserGirl (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC) oop. it was a duplicate warning for something else. my bad. mea culpa EraserGirl (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ID

I've seen the pic, Don't know offhand, but I'll look in my books later. It looks like a cardinal or grosbeak of some sort, pity we don't know where it's from. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my first thought was Red-capped Cardinal, but that has white underparts and no crest, and I've no source with Red-crested. Jimfbleak (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a wiki page with references for the Red-crested one. Snowman (talk) 10:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Link

If I add content to a subject and back it up with a source how is that any different than something added by someone else doing the exact same thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chet Womach (talk • contribs) 16:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a problem? Snowman (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agapornis revisited

Just to let you know, a fossil Agapornis was some years ago found in a Miocene deposit of South Africa. Other specimens were found in younger strata. It's nothing earth-shaking, the molecular data plus the fossil record of parrots in general would suggest that they were there by then. I'll try to get some more data on it and eventually put it up in the article. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As there are nine species of Agapornis, these details will make some difference to the wiki content of the order of parrots, about 330 - 350 species. There are taxonomic problems everywhere, even for the Little Penguin subspecies, and the Penguin order only has about 23 species. I would have thought that all these difficulties would have been sorted out from DNA evidence. Snowman (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment on WP:IFD

In regards to your comment on Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_April_13#Image:Sts107_crew_faces.jpg, the template ({{ncd}}) requires that all of the conditions of WP:CSD#I8 be met, and there are quite a few. The biggest is that the image on commons be bit-for-bit identical. Thank you for your interest in the process. ~ Bigr Tex 16:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin's Finches

I've nothing that covers the Galapagos for this family - sorry Jimfbleak (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult. I might ask WP:Birds. Snowman (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Cockatoo

Took me a while to figure out how to reply to your message, haha. I'm just writing an small article about the Northen Brushtail Possum at the moment. Thanks for the compliment and the links :) I will edit my user page another day as it's getting late. --Scarlet23 (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hurry to write on your user page. I plan to have a look at the Possum page soon. Snowman (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Evans

I don't know who does the assessments, but I think it's spiffy.

Blue-eared Lory

The image you got from Flickr for this article, are you sure of that ID? Given the location of the photographer I think that Crimson Rosella is a much stronger candidate, especially as the photographer in question has some pictures of that species from the same location. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. I have re-uploaded the image with a correct file name and the old one will be deleted after a day or two. Snowman (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conures

Snowmanradio, you removed two links from the Conures section of Wikipedia without notifying me, or sharing your concerns. If you would have come to me, I would have told you that the links you removed are not spam. Shameless advertising is spam, but the websites I posted are not. They are two websites that specialize in Parrots, one directly specializes in Conures. Both websites have actively rescued parrots, raised money for the benefit of parrot's world wide, and taught many people many new and interesting things about birds. If you need a third party back up or any such reference, I will be happy to assist you. Might I suggest googling XOParrots and seeing what it's all about? Lexhatesyou (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]