User talk:Loopy30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

My article on Deanna Kamiel[edit]

Hi, Loopy30. I submitted a draft article on Deanna Kamiel believing that, as she won the Guggenheim Fellowship in 1984, she was sufficiently notable. However, my draft was rejected on the grounds that she was not notable. Your opinion, please? Katsheron (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It gets worse. I think Mr. McClenon's response is very rude and unnecessarily condescending. I tried to follow his instructions to put my comment at "the bottom" but it appeared at the top. So what! Editors are not here to be abused. Also, why would he say my topic was not notable BEFORE checking to see if the Guggenheim Fellowship was sufficient notability? Here is a copy and paste of this conversation:

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC) Draft:Deanna Kamiel First, please do not top-post to my talk page. You not only posted your inquiry at the top of my talk page, but you posted it in between a collapsetop and collapsebottom where I had hidden previous top-posts. Your post is therefore invisible. If you do not know how to post to an editor's talk page, please ask for advice or assistance at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. Please do not just guess, and guess wrong, how posting is done. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Second, I will look to see if there is a notability guideline that covers her. In any case, your draft did not clearly demonstrate her notability. Again, I suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

If the person is notable based on receiving the Guggenheim Fellowship award, then notability should not need to be further demonstrated. I did a page on Marvin Tile based on his receiving the Order of Canada that has a lot fewer references than my article on Deanna Kamiel, and it was accepted simply because no one can deny his notability, having received the Order of Canada. Katsheron (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC) Katsheron (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I checked the Wikipedia notability criterion for a biography of a person and here it is: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Also, if you go to Categories for Wikipedia, and type in Guggenheim Fellowship award recipients, go to 1984 and find the name Deanna Kamiel, click on her name, it takes you to a page which invites you to create a draft for her. Katsheron (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Katsheron, I am glad to see that you are still contributing to Wikipedia. Don't worry too much about the placement of your talk post thread or Robert McClenon's response, it was just a simple mistake and made in good faith. Yes, the convention on Wikipedia user talk pages is to post new threads at the bottom and to indent replies to others by using a colon at the start of the first line. Your post here to my talk page was similarly placed in the middle, perhaps because you had not scrolled down both the page scroll bar sufficiently and the Wikipedia edit box scroll bar to the bottom of the page before starting to type your comments. As far as contributions go, creating a new article from scratch can be difficult, and creating a new biography article can be considered the hardest of these. This is because of the scrutiny that is rightly given to biography pages by reviewers and other Wikipedia editors. Both you and the reviewers are correct in that notability is key for a biography article. User:DESiegel has provided some helpful points on the talk page of the draft Deanna Kamiel article. Keep trying and don't lose heart, if you are stuck, help is always available at various places. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, again. My Deanna Kamiel article has sat around now for 7 weeks following my making the changes requested. Then another reviewer said it needed ref's to critics, so I added a Review section citing critics. Is there anything you can do to get it accepted? Katsheron (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Katsheron, as an extended confirmed user with 860 edits to articles on Wikipedia, you can move the draft to main-space yourself. If you feel that the draft article properly demonstrates Deanna Kamiel's notability then be bold and put it out there for everyone to see. Once you do this, a few things will happen. First, the article will no longer be your draft article (see WP:OWN). This means that over time others will edit it at as they see fit. Secondly, if any editor feels strongly that the article still lacks demonstrated notability of the subject, they may nominate the article for deletion. If this happens, you - and everyone else - will be permitted to present arguments for and against deleting the article. After a week, or two if the discussion (or lack thereof) is extended, an un-involved editor (either an admin or experienced editor) will close the discussion recommending keep, merge, or delete. Only then would an admin delete as necessary. At this point, you have put enough work into the article that there is not much more you can do to demonstrate notability. Put it on main-space and let it sink or swim (keep or delete) on its own merits. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Katsheron (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

An unrelated question: I note that Phil Mudd, who we see on CNN all the time, doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Would there be a reason for that? Do some people ask to not have a page? Katsheron (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Individuals can ask that incorrect facts be redacted from articles about them, but as long as they are considered notable, Wikipedia may have an article about them, whether the notable individual wishes so or not. For Phil Mudd, an article on him would have to pass notability as either a senior civil servant (deputy-director of the CIA's NCTC and FBI's NSB) or as a television personality (CNN talking head). Neither is a sure thing, as you would have to provide third-party sources of the notability of their tenure, not just the boiler-plate facts of their employment. Loopy30 (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Italic titles[edit]

Automatic taxoboxes are quite good at making titles italicized, even when there is a parenthetical disambiguator. However, automatic italicization will be overriden if there is a value in the |name= parameter. In most cases when a genus with an automatic taxobox doesn't have an italicized title, it can be fixed by removing the name, rather than needing to add {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. Plantdrew (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks Plantdrew. I found afterwards that just using {{Italic title}} also worked instead of the more complicated {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Turbinaria'' (coral)}}. Loopy30 (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

My spelling...[edit]

... contains habitual errors, which I seem incapable of recognising; so thanks for fixing that fine example at Roman republic. I also have no clue when to use "which", rather than "that", though it's been explained to me umpteen times. It annoys the hell out of me, but it's deeply ingrained. Haploidavey (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Haploidavey, no problem ... that's why the project is a collaborative effort! Loopy30 (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Indeed it is! Thank you. Haploidavey (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Homophyllia bowerbanki[edit]

I see that you have moved the page Acanthastrea bowerbanki to Homophyllia bowerbanki because WoRMS has decided to reclassify it. I think you should propose the move on the talk page before doing such a move as we do not have a consensus to follow WoRMS as far as I know (although I normally do). The point I am really making, however, is that you should complete the move process by changing the text in the taxobox and main text so that they match the new title. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cwmhiraeth, sometimes I lose my internet connection right when I am in the middle of doing something. I am back now and have completed the edit. As far as following WoRMS as a taxonomic standard, no-one objected when I asked at the project page in February and you supported it there too. As I have moved several other cnidarian pages and not heard any objections yet, I shall continue to go boldly (or blindly) forth... 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, it's better now. However if you are going to show/hide the synonyms, it might be a good idea to mention the change of name in the lead. In this instance you have changed the name in the IUCN citation, which is incorrect, while leaving it in the WoRMS citation. If you were to change the WoRMS citation to the new name, which would be advisable to back up the new name, you should also change the access date. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, what you suggest was indeed what I intented to do, but only changed the date for the WoRMS ref and then swapped the wrong genus name (in the IUCN ref) instead. It is corrected now. Loopy30 (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I am the original producer of the film (with Martin Sheen, my friend and business partner). I added some context on the unusual nature of the birth of this film.[edit]

Hi Loopy30- I'm hoping this is the way to communicate with you. I must confess the menu system here is a bit overwhelming and I'm confused. So, presuming this will reach you, I want to ask your help in correcting and enhancing the entry regarding "Nightbreaker", the movie. I am, in fact, the producer of the film. And therefore, I would not expect to be able to add editorial content that describes the film subjectively. However, I am concerned that the credits listed are wrong and include a producer who was NOT involved in the film, Tony Garnett (I've never even heard of him) and excludes the actual producers, Martin Sheen, William R. Greenblatt (me) and Jeffrey Auerbach. These credits can be confirmed in any number of ways including the listing of the film on the IMDB, and the film itself (I could provide screenshots). The editorial content I added are simply facts (awards and nominations received, etc.) or descriptions of the historical actions of the producers, cast and crew. I could get verification from Martin Sheen and/or the director (Peter Markle) or anyone else involved. One of the things I'm confused about is if no-one involved in the project can contribute to this page, as per Wiki's rules, doesn't that eliminate the most knowledgeable people involved in the project? I appreciate your gracious response to my edits and the time you are volunteering to help us all make Wikipedia accurate and useful. Please let me know how we can make these changes. Best, Bill Greenblatt Billg414 (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Billg414, thanks for your message and also your becoming a contributing editor to Wikipedia. It can indeed be overwhelming experience at first when trying to navigate how to edit Wikipedia articles. As there is so much information out there, it can be a bit like sipping on a fire hose when you start to look for answers. My advice would be to start with easy edits and then only learn new things incrementally as you go. For editing basics the Wikipedia Adventure will get you started and for new editor help, the Teahouse is a friendly place to ask questions (both links in your welcome message on your talk page). You can also ask me here as well.
One of the core principles of Wikipedia is that all edits must be verifiable and from reliable sources. No editor, even one with first-hand knowledge of the topic, may add subjective or un-verifiable material to an article. This also why those with a conflict of interest are discouraged from editing on topics they have a personal stake in. For the edits on the film Nightbreaker, I think I can help you as although IMDB is not considered a reliable source, I have found a reference on a British Film Institute that supports your claim. I am assuming here that the BFI didn't just copy the info from IMDB originally, as much of IMDB's information is user-generated content and not acceptable. While the information on TNT origin and awards is very likely supportable, the claim that the film was directly responsible for the US decision to end underground nuclear testing would definitely have to be sourced.
I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia in the future, 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


As a speciesbox expert perhaps you can help solve a mystery for me. I used the speciesbox from Conchoderma auritum as a guide when creating Conchoderma virgatum. The former article has an italic title, as it should have, and the latter does not. I do not understand why this is. Can you help? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Cwmhiraeth, I think you did everything correctly and it does look like it should work. I think that sometimes templates are stored somewhere where they can be called easily but are not refreshed more often than once a day. Although I have added the italic title template, this should be redundant and it will likely fix itself within 24hrs. By the way, I am by no means an expert, merely a frequent user. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, it is because the spelling of the article title and the species name in the binomial in the taxobox do not match! Is the article at the correct title? or is the taxobox and text correct? Loopy30 (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Well spotted, it's obvious when it's pointed out. A surprising number of synonyms are actually mis-spellings of the correct name. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Reference names[edit]

Thanks for your comment at User_talk:HNdlROdU#Reference_names_again_2. They seem determined, even though they then end up doing complicated edits like this to preserve their system. Do you think it is time for a series of formal escalating "disruptive editing" templates, potentially leading to ANI and then an official warning to comply or be blocked? PamD 14:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello PamD, I consider that the five warnings given already do constitute a series of formal escalating warnings for "disruptive editing", and that he is now at Level 3. I do note that while he has posted to a few others' user talk pages, he has never responded to messages posted on his own talk page and has simply ignored all warnings and advice given. I also consider his practice of reverting automatic taxoboxes (here), tagging 2.3kb edits as minor (here), and mis-spelling existing templates (here) as petty but still disruptive editing. For the most part, his contributions are helpful but occasionally some appear of uncertain validity as he has not included the sources used or relied on primary sources only. Loopy30 (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


Hello! I think I found the source that the IP editor was using for the multiple bird species extinctions (Cryptic treehunter, Spix's macaw, Po'ouli, and Pernambuco Pygmy Owl). This article was pointed to in a Guardian article (here) on 4 Sep. The Red List hasn't been updated yet, so probably the articles should reflect the existing classification, but it may be useful to add as a reference to their (possible) extinction. Thanks, and happy editing! PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi PohranicniStraze, the Guardian article was also added as a reference for extinction by another editor (Thomas Ludwig) in the Pernambuco pygmy owl article. I reviewed it before reverting and found that on closer reading, despite the recommendation in the quoted paper by Butchart et al, the Guardian still did not state that BirdLife had changed or was going to change the IUCN rating to extinct. As for the newly proposed method of recommending an extinct classification, it is algorithmic but still based on an arbitrary threshold that has not yet been adopted by anyone else. As such, I have reverted the unsourced changes where found. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I've reverted your miraculous resurrection of the Spix as "unsourced". I have no wish to get into a twitcher's pissing contest over this, but really? Just from the WP editing practice standpoint, in no way should that have been reverted as "unsourced". Nor do I want to see another WP claim that all UK tabloids are banned as sources.
If you want to argue for the continuing wild survival of the Spix, then you're going to need a phenomenal source. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello Andy Dingley, while the retention of the Spix's macaw's status as "potentially extinct" cries more of a black knight refusing to admit his fate than of any miraculous resurrection, it is the recent change to the Spix's macaw status in the article that would need proper sourcing. The WP editing practice demands that changes to an article such as a change in conservation status should be sourced. Both the IOC and the IUCN, Wikipedia's most trusted source on extinction status for birds, still classify the bird as "critically endangered" and "possibly extinct in the wild", and not "extinct". Despite the attention-getting article title in The Guardian (a reputable newspaper that I am no way disparaging as a tabloid), it does not actually state in the text of their report that the bird is extinct either. Instead, it reports that a new statistical model which is only 80% accurate compared to existing IUCN assessments, has led to a recommendation for the IUCN to change the status in a future assessment. If, or more likely when, the IUCN does change its conservation status for the Spix's macaw, Wikipedia will follow suit. Edits to reflect these changes should not be made prematurely, simply because it is an editors opinion that the recently reported recommendation is correct. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • You are pushing this closer and closer to ANI, especially by removing it a second time as "unsourced".
This content is not unsourced. To describe it repeatedly as such is an attack on other editors: sourcing is important on WP, it is a serious insult to another editor to describe them (falsely) as adding unsourced content.
It would be reasonable to qualify this change as, "BirdLife International declared that the Spix was extinct [grauniad]". One might even go so far as to say that BirdLife were wrong here, that the IUCN disagree, and that BirdLife are not competent or WP:RS to declare such a thing, but you're going to have to source that opinion too (as it's simply your opinion until you do so). You might even expand this into a whole section - maybe a section on the BirdLife article, that BirdLife and IUCN are using different (but both credible) metrics and algorithms for declaring extinction. It is not acceptable to, solely from your own opinion, to edit out this verifiable, reliably sourced, and secondary comment on a respected body in the conservation field, just because you don't like it. Especially not over the specific edits of multiple editors. That's edit-warring, no more, and it's not acceptable. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Bystander note - the species has been declared extinct in the wild from the 1990s example but reports from the wild did keep popping up now and then. It is generally quite hard to establish absence (like Proving a negative in general). But BirdLife has indeed apparently declared Spix's as extinct in the wild - - hope you can both agree on an edit - you are both valuable and I hope this can be settled amicably. Shyamal (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley, I think that Shyamal has now added to the article an accurate summary of any new information known from the sources provided. While BirdLife has not yet changed their assessment of the Spix's macaw, it is now clear from their news release that they fully intend to do so at sometime in the near future (weeks? months?). As BirdLife is the IUCN's main (or sole?) assessor for bird species, this would certainly produce the change in conservation rating expected. Note that the language in the sources, both primary and secondary, all refer to the future (eg. "look set to have their extinctions confirmed", "primed to have their extinctions either confirmed or deemed highly likely", "we recommend that nine species are reclassified on the IUCN Red List") and the newly added text in the article did not reflect this. Perhaps a softer edit summary would have been "rmv text unsupported by source" instead of one that could be construed as a "serious insult" to other editors. As an aside, my "personal opinion" agrees with yours, that the bird is indeed extinct in the wild, but we should instead strive to ensure that the Wikipedia article accurately reflects only the information from the sources provided. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: August 2018[edit]

This Month in GLAM logo 2018.png

Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 13:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


When you created Template:Taxonomy/Alveolitina, you gave its rank as "subordo". However, it cannot be a suborder, because its parent, Favositida, is given as a suborder in both the article and the taxonomy template. I've changed "subordo" to "cladus" (clade) to prevent errors in the automated taxobox system. Maybe some other rank is appropriate. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Peter coxhead, thanks for fixing that. I was led astray by the Fossilworks entry that lists Alveolitina as a suborder, and Favositida as a separate order with Tabulata as a subclass. This conflicts with the IRMNG entry for Tabulata which classifies it as an order. I do not know which of these sources has precedence so I will leave it as is for now. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, fine by me. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Category chains[edit]

Hello. I noticed your recent message on Plantdrew's talk page. I can't track down the route to the fox but there are several chains such as

Category:AnthozoaCategory:Coral reefsCategory:Clipperton IslandGalapagos shark

Petscan interprets category membership as "is a" even when that's not what the editor intended when adding the article or subcategory to the category. It reasons that since all Galapagos sharks are islands, Clipperton Island is a coral reef, and all coral reefs are anthozoa, therefore the sharks are anthozoa.

Ideally there would be an initiative to classify the millions of category memberships as "is a" or "is vaguely related to a", but I don't think we have the resources to achieve that. Hope that helps, Certes (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I just made the same point on Plantdrew's talk page. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
If you can figure out what category is bringing in the anomalous results, just add it to the Negative Categories section in Petscan. It's not always easy to figure that out, but it is worth looking at the anomalous articles and seeing what categories they have. Sometimes it's really obvious what category is producing the anomalies. Plantdrew (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
My quick test suggests it's mainly Category:Coral reefs, which shouldn't be a subcategory of Category:Anthozoa anyway. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
And here I was thinking that subcategories were all neatly nested inside a parent category! Thanks to each of you for the responses and explanations. Loopy30 (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Subcategories are all neatly nested inside a parent category. The problem is that a lot of less welcome junk is nested in there too. Wikidata (for all its faults) is more rigid about only linking that which should be linked. This SPARQL query may be more useful. (Click the triangle bottom left to run it.) To adapt it for other taxa, just change the parent taxon from "Anthozoa" in the dropdown top left (or overtype "Q28524" with its Wikidata item number top right). Certes (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)