User talk:Rhinopias

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


Metridium dianthus[edit]

Metridium senile is now considered to be a synonym of Metridium dianthus (see this link). Your edit here was incorrect because apparently the long-accepted name Metridium senile is no longer considered valid. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, @Cwmhiraeth: Sorry, I didn't notice your edit summary on Metridium dianthus on August 1. I've restored them to how they were but removed Metridium senile from the list of species on Metridium. Should I request a technical move to rename Metridium senile to dianthus? Otherwise, I don't think me changing each instance of the name on the page to dianthus and adding senile as a synonym would be beneficial. – Rhinopias (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I tried moving it, but the process requires an administrator for technical reasons. You are welcome to proceed as you think fit, or do nothing, as I lazily did. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
There was a quick response to your technical move request, the article has been moved to the new name and I have edited it where necessary. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

RFPP[edit]

No need to apologize for placing a request--it's all good, this is why they pay me and Samsara the big bucks. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Oh, that's what you meant when you said would I mind about you not forwarding the mail! Samsara 16:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
No one mentioned Special:DirectDeposit? – Rhinopias (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Your edits to The Titan's Curse[edit]

Hey there, Rhinopias. Just a slight complaint I guess about your recent edits to The Titan's Curse. Your edit summaries calling the "prophecy" text "obviously from a separate edition" and the "meaning" text "likely OR" indicate that you have not read the rest of the page or viewed other pages related to the series. Now, I'm not asking that you revert your changes - I get that you pulled the sections mostly because they were unreferenced, which is an unforgivable problem. Had I the time right now, I would take care of this issue. However, I do ask that in the future you read more of the relevant pages before deleting so much text. I only bring this up because I am constantly defending these types of sections, and much better referenced ones too. I've found it's more straightforward to ask an editor to read more carefully before blanking entire sections, rather than trying to convince them to allow those sections back in after they're already gone. Please ping me if you respond to this message. Happy editing! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, 2ReinreB2! I first compared the current article's structure (prior to my removals) to that when it was promoted to a good article in order to help me determine whether or not I believe that the "meaning" section is original research, as it was collecting some interesting edits. If it was present when the article was promoted, the reviewer accepted the interpretation and the simple listing of the prophecy text as verifiable and as appropriate inclusions in that particular section of the article, or the article itself.
In regards to the listing of the prophecy, I don't think that the article and—in particular—the plot summary lead the reader to the realization that the prophecy is important enough to the plot for its transcription. The only mention of the prophecy is in its utilization for a quest for the characters, pushing the plot forward. (With the line "the Oracle (a shriveled mummy) somehow leaves the attic where it was kept and delivers the Huntress a prophecy. Chiron and Zoë organize a quest …") It doesn't seem appropriate to include it without context of why the text of the prophecy is important. And it doesn't make sense for its only rationalization for inclusion to be for explaining its interpretation, because its interpretation (the "meaning" of it) is simply a reiteration of the plot summary (e.g., with "consisting of", "followed", "consisted of", "in the end"). Its inclusion simply for its perceived importance to the novel without an explanation of why is also against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. For a good article especially, we need to have high encyclopedic standards according to our policy.
Whether or not the interpretation of the prophecy is important to the article, it should not belong in the plot summary section according to MOS:PLOT ("Interpretation of the plot taken from reliable sources can be included elsewhere in the article to provide additional information"). However, the interpretation is simply original research… unless there is a source utilized in the article that explains each line of the prophecy in such detail (or it exists somewhere and could be added back, into an interpretive section), it is our own information that we are adding to the article. (Additionally, the prophecy text as it is currently written prior to removal incorporates original research in its use of wikilinks that direct to the meaning of the words, which is also misleading.) From WP:OR: "Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated in the published sources." If the interpretation of the prophecy isn't reaching or implying something, then it must be reiterating the plot and is redundant. If it is reaching a conclusion, I'm challenging its verifiability. Let me know if you'd like me to clarify something further. – Rhinopias (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I apologize for assuming you had not done this much research; that was unfair of me. I have a pet peeve about editors taking action based on faulty info and then refusing to consider alternate viewpoints. I have had several editors come into a book's article and delete chunks of text, often related to a prophecy or something similar, because they believe that the text is OR. In these cases, even when the book itself was specifically referenced, the editor thought such an analysis could not have been from the book itself, mainly because they had never read the novel or looked at other sources of info about it. After the relevant sections were redacted, it was then like pulling teeth to get any bit allowed back in even if it was crucial to the plot summary. So I switched my strategy about trying to save "falsely accused" information. I apologize if I came off too argumentative when you've done nothing wrong; this will be yet another learning experience for me.
I do reiterate that this particular section was unreferenced (it is actually taken from the novel itself, although this may not be apparent) and so had to die. So I'm not criticizing your actions, and I very much appreciate the time you took to research and respond to me. Happy editing! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@2ReinreB2: I'd use the term "research" loosely. It was more… instinct? :} But I very much appreciate your approach to this disagreement and I hope that my response did not seem like I was attacking you, just defending my actions. I haven't necessarily done "nothing wrong" as my actions could be interpreted as not improving the article, but I don't know if policies and guidelines are ever really ignored in a circumstance like this.
If consensus is against you about some content being original research, the content must be verified. We did not seek a consensus, so if you still disagree with me we could begin a discussion the article's talk page. Someone may be able to suggest how and where the prophecy could be made relevant, but it just depends on what's out there. If there are no reliable sources discussing a particular topic on a subject (which is the article), then it can't be included regardless of the article's notability. (As said in WP:No original research: "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.") Though, the interpretation of the prophecy is not taken directly from the novel; it is synthesized from material within the novel (the reliable source). – Rhinopias (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
No, no, we're fine. My problem is not with this specific article, more with the practice of removing text without working to otherwise improve the article in general. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

What measure is non-minor?[edit]

When a edit is minor I click minor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrkin (talkcontribs) 23:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

(See #Marking edits as "minor") – Rhinopias (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Monterey Bay Aquarium[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Monterey Bay Aquarium you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Monterey Bay Aquarium[edit]

The article Monterey Bay Aquarium you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Monterey Bay Aquarium for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Gallery[edit]

Thank you for showing me how to improve a gallery! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: no problem! Though I did snag that from some GA (I've since forgotten the name of) that had an aesthetically pleasing image gallery. :P – Rhinopias (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
That's what I like about our project ;) - What I don't like? Arbitration enforcement, for example, or article tags ;) - Happy editing! ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Questions[edit]

Good day, You mentioned a few of my edits on my talk page. Honestly, I don't intend them to be advertisement. The Rubina Kuraoka Audiobook edit was made because I thought that people could find it interesting. It was hardly advertisement to me, since I doubt that any native englisch speaker will get it. And the others... I add books to films that were released YEARS ago. That can mostly only be bought used, so that the publishers wouldn't get any prift from them anyway. And with the audiobooks... I'm just trying to add interesting aspects to articles. Sure, the voice of somebody is very porsenal, I'm happy for everybody who can leave things like that behind. But I'm never about advertisement. Robudor (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Robudor. As I mentioned, it looks a bit like promotion, but I trusted that you were making those additions with good intentions. I think that, going forward, it would be beneficial for you to check out pages within the "Policies and Guidelines" section of the welcome message on your talk page to learn how your contributions can benefit the project. (Also listed here.) There are many, many policies and guidelines out there, so I am not at all suggesting that you read through everything prior to contributing! I personally started becoming familiar with policies and guidelines by removing vandalism and by making small fixes (grammar and wikitext, for example), which are more clear-cut than creating content in articles in Wikipedia's encyclopedic style, especially for biographical articles. Making small fixes helps me become acquainted with more and more components of the Manual of Style. – Rhinopias (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Anna Marguerite McCann[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Anna Marguerite McCann at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Monterey Bay Aquarium[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 7 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Monterey Bay Aquarium, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Monterey Bay Aquarium was the first public aquarium to exhibit a living kelp forest (pictured), which is nearly three stories high? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Monterey Bay Aquarium. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Monterey Bay Aquarium), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

aquarium

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you for quality articles such as Monterey Bay Aquarium and Anna Marguerite McCann, for helpful collaboration, welcoming new users and fighting vandalism, for giving reasons, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Why thank you, Gerda! You're too kind. :] – Rhinopias (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Congrats on the Monterey Bay Aquarium DYK[edit]

Wanted to introduce myself and say great job on the Aquarium's WP page. Good use of DYK and GA.Sgerbic (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I second Sgerbic's kudos, and also for snagging the picture on the DYK. I have been to the aquarium once and did not realize that it was in the last cannery standing before I got there. It was so cool to see that the aquarium is continuing and adding to the history of Cannery Row. I am ecstatic that you brought that out in the article and that the aquarium revitalized the area. And, all the other details that you brought out. Congratulations on a Job Well Done. And thank you for your efforts. Shortsword (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Sgerbic, Shortsword: thank you both so much! I'm quite enamored by the org, and that picture was from a visit in 2015 when I had a family member's fancy DSLR I had (/still have) no idea how to use. Took me quite a while to get going on the rewrite but I'm glad I stuck with it because it turned out to be better than I expected! – Rhinopias (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
So it got honoured by a second round on the Main page, but reached the stats yesterday already. Go for FA now. You can start by peer review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I think I'd like to make a few other minor additions and go over the sources in detail before I submit for PR sometime in the near future, and hopefully for FA. Thank you for your insistence, though, Gerda! – Rhinopias (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
How's it now, Gerda? It hasn't gotten much attention at PR, but I think I've made a large number of beneficial additions/changes. Also went through all of the references and I'm feeling good about them. A little nervous about all of the images (esp. the gallery of permanent exhibits), so I'm wondering what you think about it... Rhinopias (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I love it! For images, our expert is Nikkimaria, - repeating: we talk about Monterey Bay Aquarium. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Live animals and aquatic life aren't copyrightable, but exhibits like this one are. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: interesting. Should I request explicit permissions under a CC license from the org for that one and this one? Or do you think they should they be deleted from Commons? Their website has no information about the copyright status of photos taken at the institution, just online terms of use, which talks about the intellectual property rights but the beginning specifies the agreement is for websites and mobile applications. A page about filming requests says it or photos are prohibited for commercial purposes without authorization. Rhinopias (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
You can always ask, but that notice makes me suspicious they'll say no. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: after reading about derivative works for far longer than I thought I ever would, do you think that reason #3 on c:Commons:De minimis#Guidelines applies to these two photos? #5 also. Surely the text, colors, and physical orientation of the panels would only be covered by design patents, and not copyright? All except the photographs and video stills, which hopefully are covered by de minimis. I'm willing to ask at Commons if you don't think it applies and either get permission from the org or have them deleted. Rhinopias (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree - the exhibits are in this case the focus of the photos, rather than incidental. See points 6/7. Text and exhibit design are both (potentially) copyrightable and clear enough to be seen. This image, on the other hand, matches #3. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Ah. I got too excited after I read through 5 I didn't read 6 and 7! I'll look into it more, thank you. Rhinopias (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Nikkimaria: I emailed the organization when I posted my comment above and received a reply on February 14 saying I would receive more information soon. I haven't heard from them, so I've removed the two images from the article and would like to nominate it. If they don't get back to me I'll address the issue at Commons. Rhinopias (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Misclick[edit]

Sorry, stubby finger on a screen too small! DrKay (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries! – Rhinopias (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Anna Marguerite McCann[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 9 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anna Marguerite McCann, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Anna Marguerite McCann, the first female American underwater archaeologist, published the earliest research on deep-sea shipwrecks? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anna Marguerite McCann. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Anna Marguerite McCann), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Nautilus[edit]

With all due respect, you could take 5 or 10 minutes to try and find a citation yourself. Best regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Rhinopias I am no expert in this field of study, and do not pretend to be, but this book may qualify as a reputable source for the issue in question. Kind regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I have been looking for sources for it while working on the same at Argonaut (animal). Whether or not I was thoughtful enough to do so, I don't think I should be faulted for reinstating the 4-year-old tag on something unverified. That source is good for a modern addition to the old claim! This entry at Dictionary.com pretty much covers the line also. I can add them now. – Rhinopias (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
No worries. Best regards, Rhinopias. --Kieronoldham (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@Kieronoldham:, I've added that book source/clarification to Argonaut (animal) because I'm not sure the argonaut's biology is relevant to the lead of Nautilus? Thanks for moving me along. :P – Rhinopias (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Rhinopias. I'll check it in a few moments. I just personally resolve into trying to find at least one citation per day (or every other day). Regards, Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Alex Shih (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Rhinopias. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Plagiolepis alluaudi[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 13 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Plagiolepis alluaudi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that little yellow ant colonies raise the larvae of agricultural pests, including aphids, in their own nest? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Plagiolepis alluaudi. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Plagiolepis alluaudi), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Reversion on Fishkeeping[edit]

Hello, it is a common knowledge in aquarium fish keeping that both ammonia and nitrite must be 0ppm for fish to stay alive long term. The old text I edited was clearly wrong. It said it must reach a certain concentration for it to be harmful. It is false. Both ammonia and nitrite even at the slightest concentration will harm the fish even if it does not kill the fish outright. Do not quote me on it. Ask on any fish forum to see how experts answer. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram8349 (talkcontribs) 01:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ram8349! I'm very sorry I missed the notification that you commented on my talk page.
I removed your edits not because I deemed the information you added to be incorrect, but because the information you contributed was not present in the reference you added with it. Instead of adding to the reference that was already present you replaced it, removing the source that was used for the text already present in that paragraph. Diving into the source you gave now, perhaps you meant to link to this page specifically: Aquarium Nitrogen Cycle In Fish Tanks? I think that the introductory paragraph of the article Ammonia poisoning says exactly what you are trying to say – but unfortunately that article doesn't cite any sources. I found this paper that supports the information using trout, and there are more at the Scholar search.
I do think that an elaboration in the first paragraph of Fishkeeping § Nitrogen cycle is warranted. I agree that the sentence Nitrogen waste products become toxic to fish and other aquarium inhabitants above a certain concentration might imply to some that it's referring to ammonia, as fish excrete nitrogenous waste in the form of ammonia. As far as I'm aware, the phrase "nitrogenous waste compounds" can also refer to nitrite or even nitrate when discussing the nitrogen cycle in aquarium systems. Unfortunately, I can't find a way online to access the source that's used to check its wording. This should probably be clarified though – maybe I'll get around to it. If not, feel free to be bold and try again! Let me (or Tryptofish! :P) know if you have any questions about the links I left on your talk page. Rhinopias (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Cuttlefish vid[edit]

Hey there,

You submitted File:Metasepia pfefferi grabs shrimp with tentacles.webm to the Wiki Science Competition, pointing to this page on Vimeo. Since first publication is important for copyright purposes, and since it looks to have been uploaded to Vimeo first, could you change the license on that version to reflect the CC license you used when uploading it to Commons? I know that you can use CC licenses on Vimeo, though I'm afraid I couldn't tell you how it's done. The alternative is to go through OTRS (if you would prefer not to change the license of the Vimeo upload). (Context: I'm on the jury for the United States branch of the competition, just trying to work through some licensing issues).

Congrats on getting the aquarium article to GA btw. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Rhododendrites! Thanks! :P
It was the first video I've tried to upload, and I read c:Help:Converting video as far as the video2commons link, not seeing the way to convert and upload without using a URL. I just changed the license on Vimeo to cc-by-sa-3.0 (settings for the video –> under "Advanced") and updated the file's licensing template.
I just messed around with Commons Video Convert to upload the file but it has been converting for a while. Is there a way to use a newly uploaded file as the entry instead, and delete the old one? Or maybe there's a way to upload it as a new version somehow? I just noticed that the conversion of the current file seems to have decreased the size (from 15 MB) and quality of the original upload, altering the colors… :[ Rhinopias (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I just marked the license as reviewed. I'm afraid I'm not much help when it comes to video conversion. I've only done it a few times and haven't been terribly happy with the results. In fact, I'm ashamed to say I've just opted for gifs most of the time. :) Of course, that's intentional for some of those (I like that they just play automatically in an article). Regardless, you may want to ask about it at the Commons Village Pump. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks re Cogewea[edit]

Just to say thanks for the third (fourth!) opinion at Talk:Cogewea#Challenge to “Original Research” claim. I appreciate your efforts to explain the problem, even if the requester of the outside opinion doesn't. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to see if anyone's reasoning can persuade. I had fun connecting OR and V! Rhinopias (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Revisions on Intensive Interaction[edit]

Hi

Sorry I don't get the revision? The page asks for help with improving it, I added a link to the IntensiveInteraction.com website which has a researched articles complete with citations and it gets deleted as promotion or spam. Hmm!! Name: Intensive Interaction : Link: Intensiveinteraction.com ?

Did I miss something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajiinis (talkcontribs) 21:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ajiinis. The reason I assumed that you were adding links in a promotional manner is because you added the same link to multiple articles with no explanation (either in the edit summary or next to the link in the External links section) of why the link is relevant to the article, and the article Intensive interaction is already written in a very promotional manner. Wikipedia has lots of information about how to utilize external links in articles at WP:External links; see in particular the section #What to link which describes links that can generally be included or shouldn't be included. The article Intensive interaction is about the concept and technique—not a particular organization or group or something that would have a website—so there isn't an "official website" for it. I didn't see much information on the website, so I followed the standard of removing links that are questionable because Wikipedia isn't a collection of links.
The Intensive interaction article has cleanup tags now asking for help in correcting specific issues, but I added those after the link was added in this edit. Regardless of the specific requests, you and all readers are welcome to be bold in editing articles! The message I left on your talk page has a few links to get you started. Rhinopias (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


The article actually references Wikipedia in its citations yet you say it doesn't have much information? Its an academic article informing people what is Intensive Interaction and how to use it to support people with autism.. I think I made a mistake trying to add to Wikipedia so I'll sign off as you guys clearly know more about topics than the experts do?

A little power hur! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajiinis (talkcontribs) 22:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Octopus Locomotion Comment[edit]

In response to your edit I started a discussion on Talk:Octopus. Please join in and improve it. Thanks. Kim9988 (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

coral[edit]

Your message: Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Coral. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Rhinopias

Please explain why you think a link to an informational website is promotional or advertising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Koepf (talkcontribs) 04:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Daniel Koepf. Well, for starters, I didn't assume good faith as it was the third time you attempted to add the link after a user said—in the second reversion—that the link isn't a reliable source, and also after your edit was reverted automatically by a bot. It's not needed in the External links section for a couple reasons, one of which being it's too specific, and Wikipedia has strict guidelines on external links (at Wikipedia:External links) because the project is not a collection of links (see WP:LINKFARM). Maybe information is lacking at Coral § Feeding that is contained on the website you're suggesting, but the article Coral is classified as a good article and if you'll take a look at the references and sources listed at the bottom of the article you will see they meet a certain standard of reliable sources.
It was also telling that you or someone else attempted to create an article for the website as one of your first actions, and it was quickly deleted. (Notified of on your talk page here). Another account just added the link again, which makes me think that there are one or more people involved who are not here to build an encyclopedia. I hope this answers your question; if it doesn't, I would appreciate it if, instead of continuing to make more edits, we work together to understand the situation first. However, I do need to go to bed as I'm regrettably waking up in 6 hours. :[ Rhinopias (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits on some articles[edit]

Rhinopias, it's just that the edits I do keep getting reverted. If I want those lead images to have a full body, what am I supposed to do about it?Esagurton (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand that you would like the first image of an animal's article to have a full body shot of the subject, but that's not a requirement nor is it usually the best option. The image in the taxobox/speciesbox should just be one that represents the animal well, and if it is a good quality image that is also a plus. Wikipedia has particular policies on images (relevant section at Wikipedia:Image use policy § Adding images to articles) regarding their use in articles and also tight guidelines (all of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, particularly MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE). MOS:LEADIMAGE also discusses how Wikipedia usually treats the first image, but it is not specific to organism articles. (Click on those four links to read the pages, and more links in the rest of my reply.) A different page, MOS:LEADELEMENTS, says: "As with all images, but particularly the lead, the image used should be relevant and technically well-produced. It is also common for the lead image to be representative because it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page."
Wikipedia is not an image gallery or a collection of images, so I reverted your addition (here) to Crab-eating macaque because it does not add anything. The original image (File:Long-tailed macaque (Macaca fascicularis) Labuk Bay.jpg) gives a close-up of the animal's face and is a featured picture because it was determined by the community to be of the highest quality. File:Macaca fascicularis in Monkey Forest Ubud.jpg (the one you added) is also a relatively good quality image (not a featured picture), but it does not give the reader a faster assessment that they have arrived at the correct place than the other image. In a section about a species' reproductive biology (or conservation, like Crab-eating macaque § Conservation status), an image with a mother and her young is preferable to an image of just the animal's face. It's all about context. On North American river otter, I will likely always revert your addition of (or change to) File:North American River Otter, Beardsley Zoo, 2009-11-06 (cropped).jpg because the current image (File:LutraCanadensis fullres.jpg) is an absolutely incredible featured picture and well representative of the species, which is all that the lead image is for, as explained just above.
However, I myself am not reverting all of your edits, because you do have me on the fence with some of your changes. ;] Clayoquot reverted your addition of File:Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris) (25169790524).jpg on Sea otter because we do not put two images in the lead section unless the sexes look significantly different, which would make two images necessary to give the reader an understanding of each sex of the species (Lion, Indian peafowl, and could be on many fish articles, such as California sheephead). (This is also why your addition of a second image to the macaque article's lead wasn't relevant.) I did not revert your most recent change on Sea otter because the image you added is much higher quality than the original, and it still shows the animal's face decently. Because the animal's face is further away, it's a more difficult case of quality vs. immediate recognition. Your edit summary (Is it okay that it has a full body?) is not explaining your change (describing what, not why you are doing it), which I've attempted to explain to you in the past on your talk page. Why is the full body image better? Much higher quality and still shows face well is a good reason for swapping the image, but that doesn't mean someone won't disagree with you and revert your change. After your change has been reverted, you should discuss why you think it's better on the article's talk page prior to reinstating it or changing something similar. The section Sea otter § Physical characteristics has a picture of the sea otter (which you tried to add to the lead a while ago) out of the water, showing its full body, because it goes along with the text and is explained in the caption, which is necessary due to the guideline pages I linked at the beginning of this reply. However, the image is not of good quality and is not a good representative of the species, while File:Sea otter cropped.jpg is and so it is better for the lead.
Your unhelpful edit summary: Swapped lead image. This one is better and has full body. The old one has been moved to gallery (you wrote here), and don't just make irrelevant galleries… please read Wikipedia:Image use policy § Image galleries.
This could be a good reason: Animal is more clearly in focus, shows detail of its eye which is important for identifying the species, which is not the case here, as the previous image has a great close-up of the animal's head… why is the full body necessary to recognize the animal?
Unhelpful: Put new image in speciesbox. This is better and it show the snake's full body. Moved the old one to the section diet (you wrote here)
Could be a good reason: Switched images in the lead because this one shows color banding on the snake's body, but I don't see a good reason for the image you added over a different one used in the article that is a much better close-up (File:Children's Python.jpg). The one you added would be good in the "Description" section, which talks about total length. However, your move of the animal eating that was previously in the lead is good! Because it is relevant to that section about the animal's diet.
I recognize that some of your changes are beneficial, Esagurton, but I highly recommend that you try to engage in other areas of editing articles that do not deal with images (e.g. fixing typos or errors, adding references, many, many others) until you learn the relevant policies and guidelines surrounding image use on Wikipedia articles. You may be interested in becoming active on Wikimedia Commons where you can add all of the images you like! (Because that project is specifically for image collection and storage, different from Wikipedia's purpose to build an encyclopedia.) Rhinopias (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Third Opinion on History of Physics talk page[edit]

@Rhinopias Thanks for the Third Opinion, your suggestion was followed. Alphatronic (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alphatronic: thanks for being receptive to uninvolved input. I know it's difficult to delete content that someone has worked hard on, but, unfortunately, I think it was a pretty massive case of unwarranted images/listing. Rhinopias (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit requests for articles about animals[edit]

Is it okay for me to make edit requests for the main image in the speciesbox/taxobox in the talk pages?Esagurton (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Esagurton: yes, but note that your comment on the talk pages of articles with not many watchers may not get any responses. Red-legged seriema seems to have a very small head... a close-up of the head is probably necessary as the first image otherwise it won't be visible. Rhinopias (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Move[edit]

@Rhinopias:You have required to move Limulidae to horseshoe crab, saying it is a common name, but "horseshoe crab" is the common name of all the xiphosurans. Although to a certain extent I am to blame, for not consulting with anyone. Super Ψ Dro 06:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This can be discussed at Talk:Horseshoe crab#Page name. Rhinopias (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Homosexual behavior in animals[edit]

Hello! Please read this, comment on it. [1] Путеец (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Glass Spider[edit]

Thanks so much for your help sorting out the disagreement on the "Glass Spider" page. I was exhausted trying to talk to the user and I really appreciate you stepping in. I am however confused about one thing - I didn't think that conflicting information was enough to warrant conflict removal. Shouldn't we have noted that the claim was made, but not necessarily 100% confirmed? The statement was made by a reputable source (albeit 30 years ago), and we should have at least noted that it was possibly in error. Thoughts? 87Fan (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@87Fan: no problem! Prior to some more digging I did just now I thought it was a pretty clear exception to the Tribune's statement (which is why I sorta boldly removed), but I made a new subsection now at Talk:Glass Spider#Accuracy of Tribune source. Rhinopias (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

My Discussions on the Talk Pages of Animal Articles[edit]

Well, Rhinopias, some editors may not agree with my discussions on the talk pages of the animal articles, you know... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esagurton (talkcontribs) 13:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. You're commenting on talk pages that are not likely to be viewed often. Rhinopias (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Trying Not to Be Blocked Again[edit]

I swear I don't want to do that disruptive editing again. How am I not going to do it again? Esagurton (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

"Is" or "were"?[edit]

Hi, I'd need the help of an Englishman: in this section of the page "Universe", knowing that it isn't unlikely (or likely, for that matter, we just don't know) that the Universe is finite, what would be more natural to you, writing "The absence of net charge and momentum would follow from accepted physical laws if the Universe is finite" or "The absence of net charge and momentum would follow from accepted physical laws if the Universe were finite"?

And here there's the same problem (last paragraph, it can be read alone): two options are listed ("Universe sufficiently dense" and "Universe insufficiently dense") and we know from observations that both are unlikely, but the reader can't possibly know that because it is stated that the two options are unlikely only at the end of the paragraph, after the two options are mentioned. So what would be the correct writing, "If the Universe were sufficiently dense", "If the Universe were insufficiently dense", or "If the Universe is sufficiently dense", If the Universe is insufficiently dense"?

Thanks in advance. Drow (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Drow: wow, well… I just woke up from a nap so I probably shouldn't be allowed anywhere near physics for a while, but I don't really like the sentence at all because it's difficult to digest. I would combine this sentence with the previous one and say "The Universe appears to have neither net momentum nor angular momentum, which follows accepted physical laws if the Universe is finite." The examples ("Gauss's law and the non-divergence of the stress-energy-momentum pseudotensor, respectively") are bulky and could be a separate sentence, like how you removed them here! I don't think the sentence should use were because the following subsection says Because we cannot observe space beyond the edge of the observable universe, it is unknown whether the size of the Universe in its totality is finite or infinite.
I don't think the wording in "Model of the Universe based on general relativity" needs to be changed. I think these two are written with "were" simply because it matches the use of "k would" immediately following—"If the Universe is sufficiently dense, k would equal +1" wouldn't. It seems that, since "Observationally, the Universe appears to be flat (k = 0)", then the first use of "If … were" (k would equal +1, in which would is also implying we're not certain) is fine. I might be completely wrong, but I think (in sentences like these) the use of "if … were" implies that's not the case (e.g. "If I were blue, people would look at me strangely") while "if … is" implies we do not know whether or not it's true or whether it will be true (e.g. "If my work day today is short, we can grab dinner"). The most helpful thing would be a clarification in the last sentence confirming that the Universe is, in fact, "insufficiently dense", but I'm not qualified to make that claim and the source doesn't seem to have a preview on Google Books. Also, I'm not an Englishman or a grammarian… this is just my American instinct. Rhinopias (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much! :) I reworded the section "Physical properties", you can check if you like it :) Drow (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of photo[edit]

Why? Bengt Nyman (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bengt Nyman: my reason for removing the photo was written in my edit summary. Wikipedia is not a collection of images, in contrast to Wikimedia Commons. The single image you added, although a nice photo, did not add to the reader's understanding of the article subject. The article doesn't need an image gallery of 6 specimens lying on the sand... one is enough, and too many are distracting. The images should complement the text in the article and help illustrate things to the reader. Please read MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. For why I removed the image gallery you added, see WP:GALLERY. Rhinopias (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
The gallery illustrates differences in the species found in different parts of the world. Please restore. Bengt Nyman (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I disagree that the photos show morphological differences. However, if that is the case, there must be text to describe the context of the images and text must be cited to reliable sources. Rhinopias (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
You don't own the article Rhinopompus! back off. Bengt Nyman (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Correct, but no. ☺ Rhinopias (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead of Intelligence[edit]

Hi, in this revision, reading from the start ("Intelligence has been..."), which version is more elegant, understandable and better paced, according to you?
If I'm bothering, I'm sorry, next time I will ask to someone else :-)
Thanks in advance! Drow (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, even if I reverted my edit for the time being, I would like to know... So, could you answer? please? :-)
Thanks. :-) Drow (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
PS I would like to precise that if my version is better, that would be by no means something that would flatter me; I just want to know if I did a good thing and revert the page to my version if that is the case. It's just that I cannot provide the answer myself because English is not my first language and I read the page too many times already; my brain just can't correctly perceive the pace that the text would take for a newcomer, anymore. Drow (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I think the prior version's beginning is better but your change to the last sentence is better. I'd write "Intelligence is most widely studied in humans but has also been observed in both non-human animals and plants. Intelligence in machines is called artificial intelligence, which is commonly implemented in computer systems using programs." Using although at the beginning of a sentence implies the second thing mentioned is bigger/more important, which isn't the case here so "Intelligence … but has also" seems better to me (without a comma maybe).
I don't have a problem copyediting things if you request it of me (although, I've never even edited this article before, so I'm not sure why I'm an expert here), but it's better to discuss an article's content on its own talk page rather than a user talk page that no one would find in the future if they're editing the article. You could also, after working on an article, submit it for peer review. Rhinopias (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again. As I said here, I asked to you because your main language is English. There are many, many others who can say the same, but since we've had interaction in the past...
It is only a quick change in the wording (punctuation and stuff), that's the only reason for why I didn't discuss about it in the talk of the page. Good work! Drow (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
No problem! Rhinopias (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Re Quaternions[edit]

Apologies in advance if you perceive this as molesting, but I want to say thanks, because I got the impression that at least you underwent the plight of reading my argumentation on the TP. However, there are two things I want to comment on: first, I tried, but did not find another formulation besides "See TP". I avoided a "please" for already then guessing that it would be received as "passive aggressive", and certainly never wanted to write "according to TP", which you seemed to have perceived. Second, me stating "flowery abundance of details" was intended to describe the status of this sentence, with or without the DOW, but where the DOW fits in nicely, and not to give a reason for inserting the DOW. In the end, as said there, I do not really care if the DOW is kept or not, but I simply prefer to have it.

Please, tolerate my non-native English and feel free to delete this. Regards, Purgy (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer review of Heritage USA[edit]

I do think the peer review should be closed. I’m not really using it anymore and it seems to be old so if you would like to close it feel free to do so. LovelyGirl7 talk 05:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

A bot archives them automatically after a couple months, but I've done it. Rhinopias (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Removal of content on Fur-bearing trout[edit]

Hey, i noticed you removed some content on the Fur-bearing trout page, deeming it not noteworthy. What exactly is the parameter used to judge which popular culture cases are worthy of inclusion in an article?

Thanks, hope to hear from you soon YuriNikolai (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, YuriNikolai! Good question. It's subjective unless specific criteria for inclusion is made clear, but I think in this case the tidbit shouldn't be included in such a section. The MOS's guidelines on "trivia" in articles talks about cultural references sections at MOS:CULTURALREFS, which has helpful points on formatting and an explanation of why it's important to present them appropriately. In general, I think acceptable things to include could be references in popular films, television series, games, well-known websites, other major media, etc.
A line about an article being written on a website about the fur-bearing trout doesn't give any context to the reader as to why that information is significant. Maybe more information about the article would provide context, but I don't think many readers who come across Fur-bearing trout would be helped by being told there's an article written about it on a fiction website. As opposed to, say, a video game (with a Wikipedia article, maybe) which heavily features the fur-bearing trout and readers may be interested in checking it out or learning more about the species through it? Rhinopias (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
No problem :) Thanks for clearing that up. I'll only re-add the line if i find more substantial references to the topic at hand. YuriNikolai (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Navajo Nation Zoo wiki site[edit]

Hi Rhinopias, thanks for your messages. So, as you can tell, I'm very new to Wikipedia. And I'm trying to learn as I go.

I really only have interest in updating the one page (Navajo Nation Zoological and Botanical Park - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Nation_Zoological_and_Botanical_Park) at this time; this is because this page was terribly out-of-date with many broken reference links. I suspect that it was the previous manager of the Navajo Zoo that created the page around 2008-2010, but he no longer has regular contact with us to continue to keep the information current.

So, while I may have conflict of interest by being the current manager, I have tried to represent the updated information as impartially as possible. And I cannot think of anyone else closely associated with the Zoo to be making these edits on our behalf. I have made sure to provided viable references for everything possible, and remove links that are no longer web-accessible. I tried to be as fair and neutral with the information is possible, but if you see wording that should be changed/edited/removed, please let me know. It would be great if the page could remain as mostly edited to allow for the most current information to be presented.

Please feel free to contact me and make editorial suggestions as needed. Thanks

Dmikesic (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Dmikesic#Conflict of interest. Rhinopias (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Navajo Nation Zoo wiki site[edit]

Thank you Rhinopias for your assistance in my attempts to contribute within Wikipedia, and for understanding the situation well. I have followed your suggestion to create a user page with clear identification of conflict-of-interest for the Navajo Nation Zoo wiki-page, and have done the same in the Zoo's Talk Page. I will be restoring the broken-link reference tags, as directed, as well. Dmikesic (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

flounder hatnote[edit]

i was the one who added a disambiguation to the flounder article.

Flounder has the same name as flounder, so i thought a disambiguation hatnote would be a good idea.

i thought keeping all the similarly named articles together would also be a good idea, so i MOVED The Flounder from See also to the hatnote. i wouldn't just erase it for no reason!

i thought i explained this all well enough in my edit summary, but clearly i'm floundering.

i tried to add a winking emoticon here, but i guess Wikipedia doesn't like lines starting with a semicolon. ;-)

Do you still think the hatnote is a bad idea? If so, what do you think about adding the Disney character named Flounder to the See also section?

Do you have any advice to help me write a good edit summary?

Please reply here on your talk page or on the Talk:Flounder page. (Easier than trying to remember "what's my IP address this time?")

Thanks!

--71.121.143.54 (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, IP. I didn't notice that you included The Flounder in the hatnote, my mistake! Sorry to accuse you of erasing things. :] Hatnotes are for very specific purposes though, and examples for {{Distinguish}} are given at Template:Distinguish#When to use. I don't think {{About}} is necessary in this case either, as the novel uses "The" in the title and the Little Mermaid character isn't its own article, so readers would need to be searching for The Little Mermaid. If there are enough article titles that use the word flounder, a disambiguation page could be created (e.g. Flounder (disambiguation)), and then {{About|the paraphyletic group of flatfishes}} could be placed on the article to point readers to that disambiguation page. Rhinopias (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png Hello! Hu7210968 (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)