User talk:Tigerhawkvok

Welcome!

Hello, Tigerhawkvok, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair 07:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snake edit

I was very impressed by your picture in peer review so I decided to make an edit because I am fairly confident that this picture is FP material. For the edits I darkened the picture overall then darkened the blown out parts of the snake to get all the detail. To emphasize the dessert terrain I lightened the background. The reason for downsampling is that the people judging FPC are very strict on their sharpness so I added a layer of light sharpening and downsized it to make it appropriate. I hope you like the edit. BTW I was looking at your profile and saw that you're also majoring in physics. I'm in the class of '11 so I have a bit to go in the physics community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorrocha (talk • contribs) 19:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congratulations Tigerhawkvok! Your image Image:Gopherus agassizii.jpg was the Random Picture of the Day! It looked like this:

Random picture of the day

A Desert Tortoise, state reptile of Nevada

Image credit: Tigerhawkvok (talk · contribs)

. - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 11:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defining "monkey" and "simian"Per your edit attempts on the Lemur article, your comments read: "Most recent phylogenies accept lorises and lemurs as a type of monkey, as distinguished from "simians"." I would like to know what "phylogenies" you are referring to. No academic literature for at least several hundred years has referred to lorises and lemurs as "types of monkey". They are "prosimians", which means "before monkeys". In fact, "monkey" is not even a very good term since the group of primates it describes is parayphyletic (not a single coherent phylogenetic group). Not all primates are monkeys. Since we're talking about simian vs. prosimian (as opposed to strepsirrhine vs. haplorrhine), then the order Primates is divided into: 1) simians, which includes include monkeys and apes (and implicitly humans), and 2) prosimians, which includes lorises, bushbabies, lemurs, and tarsiers. I hope this clears things up. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] You said so yourself -- conventionally, "monkey" is paraphyletic. However, if lemuriformes, lorisiformes, adapiformes, or Aye-Ayes accepted as monkeys, the only monophlyetic way to define monkeys includes all extant primates. The piece I read may have been a speculative phylogeny, however. Tigerhawkvok (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]"Monkey" is a paraphyletic group because it excludes apes (including humans), which evolved from that clade. The lemurs (and the Aye-aye), lorises, tarsiers, and adapiformes have nothing to do with it. Within infraorder Simiiformes, there are the platyrrhines (New World Monkeys) and the catarrhines (Old World Monkeys and apes). Apes are not considered monkeys, which creates the paraphyly. I hope that explains it better. Eventually we'll write articles for simian, monkey, and ape that better reflect this. Sorry we haven't gotten around to it yet. However, the Primate article, which is a featured article should mention this. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]I am fairly sure I've read at least one instance that called at least all of anthropoidea "monkeys", but I'll have to find that. I know that my copy of Benton 2005 supports your position, calling platyrrhines and cercopithecoidea "monkeys", and excluding hominoidea from that phraseology. Tigerhawkvok (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]