Jump to content

User talk:SilverTiger12/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

SilverTiger12, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi SilverTiger12! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, SilverTiger12, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Animalparty! (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at List of cryptids shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. LuckyLouie (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you stop now before you are banned.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Misuse of "minor edit" flag

According to Help:Minor edit you MUST NOT mark as minor edits "Adding or removing references, external links, or categories in an article". DuncanHill (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I am so sorry. I won't do it again.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries

It would be helpful to other editors if you made edit summaries when editing articles. As that page says

It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was.

Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether it is worthwhile for them to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it. When a major edit (e.g. deletion of a substantial amount of text, a significant addition, or a substantial rewrite) doesn't have an edit summary, there are fewer reasons to assume good faith and busy editors may be more inclined to revert the change without checking it in detail. Summaries are less important for minor changes (which means generally unchallengeable changes such as spelling or grammar corrections), but a brief note like "fixed spelling" is helpful even then.

To avoid accidentally leaving edit summaries blank, you can select "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" on the Editing tab of your user preferences, if you have created an account.

DuncanHill (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I will. I am somewhat new to Wikipedia, so I'm still trying to learn. I thought that cleaning up the Felidae categories would be relatively harmless if I messed up, and it is something I have expertise in.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Have you had a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats yet? You'll find other editors with similar interests there, and be able to talk to them about your ideas for improvements, as well as getting help and advice if you run into difficulties. It's also well worth having a look at article talk pages, to see the sort of discussions that have taken place in the past. There is also a Wikiproject specifically about Categorisation, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories which you might find interesting.
Wikipedia can be confusing at first, but there are people who will try to help if you ask. DuncanHill (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I am knowledgeable about cats, and am fond of organization. I have now moved on to dealing with a remarkable number of useless-seeming jaguar redirects. Could I nominate those for deletion?--SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
You could, but have a read of WP:REDIRECT first. It has a section "When should we delete a redirect?" which is particularly relevant. In practice redirects are often not deleted - they often arise from common typos or may be a result of a page being moved. It's a good idea to look at incoming links to a redirect (or any other page) before nominating for deletion, as this will give you an idea of how used it is. I'll also mention WP:NOTBROKEN ("Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken"), there are often good reasons that an article uses a link via a redirect rather than using the actual article name. DuncanHill (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Right now, it looks like there used to be a bunch of subspecies, and someone created a bunch of articles on them, only for all those articles to be merged into two articles. And the redirects aren't the useful kind, either. But I'll be sure to read those policies and take the necessary steps. Thanks.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Your removal of valid categories

Why are you removing articles from valid categories? DuncanHill (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been removing articles from valid categories. Granted, I have been trying to clean up the taxonomic felid categories (mostly consisting of genera, species, and redirects), so I have been editing categories left and right. Once I get done, I think it will look a whole lot better, and make more sense. Sorry if it is messing people up.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Please stop removing valid categories and replacing them with their super-categories.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
(e/c)Here, here, and here for example. You removed articles from the categories named after them. DuncanHill (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, those. In those cases, I edited the categories to show that those were the main article, then placed in the larger Category:Felines, which I believe should contain the articles about the genera within that tribe. The categories I removed them from, are for the species within each genus. Does that make sense?--SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
It does not make sense to do that, no, especially when they can, and already have had the appropriate categories placed within the super-categories, instead of the articles, themselves.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
To explain better: Category:Felines contains articles about genera in that tribe, as well as a few species' articles whose genus is too small to warrant a category. The subcategories within Category:Felines, which are divided by genus, contain articles about the species and subspecies within that genus.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
SilverTiger12, you MUST NOT remove these categories again once other editors have restored them. If you stil believe they should be removed then it is up to you to start a discussion on the articles pages according t WP:BRD and seek consensus there. DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, but please do not remove those articles from the category I placed them in, either.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
No - not when that would go against WP:SUBCAT. I see that at Acinonyx, for example, your edits have been reverted by 3 different editors - that's wasting other editors time. DexDor (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
You have also removed a lot of articles about human–tiger interaction from Category:Tigers. I cannot see how it is helpful for articles such as Tiger conservation and Tiger hunting to be excluded altogether from the hierarchy Category:Tigers. You seem to be removing every article that is not a direct example of the category name; but that is not how categories work in English Wikipedia – we allow somewhat oblique connections, where it will facilitate navigating between articles on related topics.
I am tempted to do a mass rollback on some of your contributions here [1] but perhaps the best way forward would be for you to create Category:Tigers and humans, Category:Lions and humans etc, as sub-categories of Category:Mammals and humans and Category:Tigers etc, and populate them with the articles that you removed.
If there are similar cases where there is not enough content to justify a separate category, please reinstate the relevant category that you removed.
If a new intermediate Category:Felids and humans might be useful, please include Category:Felids in art in it. – Fayenatic London 21:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I see that you are still editing, but choosing not to reply. Moreover, you are still removing valid and useful categories from articles about related topics.
Let me try to explain things another way. Some categories in Wikipedia are "set categories", which should only contain members of a set (see WP:SETCAT). If there was a "Category:Panthera species", then the articles held directly within it should generally only be articles about a Panthera species, or lists of such species. However, other categories in English Wikipedia are "topic categories", and these validly include broader material that is related to the topic.
You seem to be treating all Felid categories as set categories, where they have been validly used as topic categories. Please desist from removing useful content from such categories. If you persist, especially if you choose not to discuss your actions, it looks very much like WP:Disruptive editing, for which there are various sanctions.
Stop. Think. Talk.
– Fayenatic London 08:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay... I am thinking, the use of taxonomic nomenclature indicates that the subcategories and articles within a category should be about species/subspecies/genera/etc. The Felinae category seems to follow this, so why shouldn't Pantherinae?
I am sorry for not talking more- explaining myself is not something I'm good at, and past experiences have put me off it. And I know that I have a tendency to try and organize things. Would creating a new category such as Category:Felids and humans, and placing the categories I'm removing in that (with more organization) help? I'd like to resolve this; I am planning on sorting the Cat:Felids by region next. And doing something about the surfeit of jaguar redirects.
Again, sorry for being disruptive, rude, etc.; I am just trying to help but acknowledge that I am not very experienced. Your patient advice and warnings are appreciated.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 12:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Yes please! Although I suggested Category:Felids and humans with sub-cats, there is an older Category:Feliforms in popular culture, with non-felid content, so perhaps Feliforms would be the most useful level to set up. – Fayenatic London 14:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
One of the problems with the categorization as it is, is that it is so confusing. I went to the cat:Panthera expecting a list of species and subspecies, and found articles on all sorts of things as well. Very confusing. Ideally, it would be possible to create or move appropriate categories to cat:Felids and humans. It will take awhile though, so please be patient while I work it out, because I am sure it will be very messy for a bit.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Topic categories are not so confusing once you have browsed them for a while, and you realise that they can be useful even despite being more diverse than "pure" set categories. As for patience, OK, but if you find that things are taking even longer than you thought, please put things back where they were until you get round to creating the new more specific categories. At the moment the only place to work from (to find unlinked related articles) is your recent contributions. – Fayenatic London 19:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Huh? I have just been moving articles around- if it was in cat:Panthera, and I removed it, chances are it is now in cat:Felids and humans somewhere.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, SilverTiger12. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Catagories

I noticed that you have been removing what appears to me to be legitimate categories from prehistoric cat articles. Specifically I'm curious why you're taking out the discovered in categories such as [2] this seems valid and the catagory you replaced it with does not convey the same information. I see above that you've already had an extensive discussion about this. Cheers. Crazynas t 17:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

For the series of edits you have noticed, those articles are actually redirects to other articles. When I was checking the cat:Feline stubs, I noticed a series of redirects in it. Those redirects are all invalid subspecies, that were apparently redirected to the valid subspecies without being merged. My removal of categories was an attempt to begin merging them. Also, if I understand correctly, the "Mammals described in..." categories are meant for species, not subspecies.
As for the above discussions concerning my categorization edits, that was a rather different issue(s), and was resolved successfully.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I didn't notice that small redirected from at the top of the page, my apologies. So I think if you make one edit to blank the page except for the redirect and then get what you need for the merge out of history it won't look as weird. I got here because your edits popped up on WP:STiki. And my above mention was just noting that I noticed you had talked about categories (in general, if you haven't noticed can be a touchy subject here) before. Cheers. Crazynas t
Oh, my. I didn't realize that my edits popped up as possible vandalism. And yes, if just looking at the diff, then the redirect is rather hard to spot.
Sorry if I came off as defensive about the above discussions. I was rather miffed that you jumped to conclusions about that, especially since that discussion ended up as much advice for a beginner, as admonition. With a successful conclusion that is still in place, no less.
Still, all's forgiven.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Category removal

Hi, in edits such as this you are removing the geographical categories from a page. Can you explain what your reasoning is for this (e.g. with links to any relevant wikiproject guidance/discussion)? DexDor (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I removed those geographical categories because they are already present on the species page I think; and I am meaning to expand the sandcat ssp. pages; also to merge scheffeli and harrisoni into F. m. thinobia per the latest assessment.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Edit: part of it is that those edits came on the tail end of a series of edits that were blanking a number of redirect pages, including removing the categories.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Information icon Hello, I'm Kb03. I noticed that you recently removed content from Feral cat without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Kb03 (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I was in the middle of something, and I am not the best at remembering to add an edit summary at the best of times. The content I removed was transferred to African wildcat (a more relevant page).--SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

New Rfc of List of cryptids

Since you participated in the rfc earlier in the year, I am letting you know of another rfc to merge List of cryptids. Which ever way the wind blows you are welcome to join in. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Binomials

Binomials are italicized, on WP as elsewhere, so this was the opposite of "cleanup". See MOS:LIFE, MOS:ITALICS, MOS:ORGANISMS. If you've removed italicized binomials from other infoboxes and {{Italic title}} from articles with similar names, that needs to be undone.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that without a |name= parameter, the title would automatically italicize. Whoops.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Cat-egories

Hi. Please stop undoing many of the links in the cats categories, they have been stable and long-term category links and to change these would take a multi-editor discussion at one of the main cat pages. Please create a discussion if you've like at one of those and please give me a ping. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they are stable and long-term. I do not appreciate your repeated changes to those categories, which you have been doing without editor discussion. I got consensus for how they were, please stop changing them.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
What consensus? Please bring it to the Cat talk page. Tigers are cats. Lions are cats. There is nothing wrong with linking the category, say 'Tigers in popular culture' with category 'Tigers'. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I added a new section on the Cat talk page, "Category usage". Please take this discussion there. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The consensus I obtained when I first cleaned up the various felid categories. After my clean-up, they stayed stable for quite awhile until you started trying to change them.
However, I am sorry my first reply sounds so combative/hostile. I have put a lot of effort into maintaining those categories, and your sudden changes were basically undoing my hard work.
To explain some things:
    • The category :Cats is currently more of a wastebasket category, but is generally meant for articles pertaining to domestic cats. The categories :Lions, :Tigers, etc., do not belong there.
    • The categories under :Panthera are all focused on the actual species- those are more scientific-focused. If the article pertains to the actual species, that is where it goes.
    • Anything not pertaining to the actual species goes somewhere under :Felids and humans. This is a work in progress.
I hope this helps.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Edit: The "Cat" articles talkpage is not the appropriate venue for discussing this issue.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It's tedious to keep reverting and discussing what, probably, seems obvious to both of us but from differing viewpoints. Cats isn't a wastebasket category, whatever that is. It is about cats. Lions, tigers, leopards, domestic cats, etc. These can be listed in both felid and cat categories to cover readers who look up either term - and most by far will be looking in the cats category for 'cats'. I've added to the Cat discussion, and asked for comments from other editors. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

April 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter

Shortcut
April 2020—Issue 013


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

Danuvius guggenmosi by Dunkleosteus77, reviewed by J Milburn
Neanderthal by Dunkleosteus77, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
Homo luzonensis by Dunkleosteus77, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
Lythronax by FunkMonk, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
Ichthyovenator by PaleoGeekSquared, reviewed by FunkMonk
Secretarybird by LittleJerry, Aa77zz and Casliber, reviewed by The Rambling Man
James John Joicey by RLO1729, reviewed by The Rambling Man
Homo naledi by Dunkleosteus77, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
Vermilion flycatcher by CaptainEek, reviewed by HickoryOughtShirt?4
Canada lynx by Sainsf, reviewed by Dunkleosteus77
Alice Gray by Rhododendrites, reviewed by The Rambling Man
Caryodendron orinocense by CPC273, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
Jaguarundi by Sainsf, reviewed by Usernameunique
Gigantopithecus by Dunkleosteus77, reviewed by Starsandwhales
Denisovan by Dunkleosteus77, reviewed by Starsandwhales
Disease X by Britishfinance, reviewed by DannyS712

Newly nominated content

Lythronax by FunkMonk, Lythronaxargestes and IJReid
Ichthyovenator by PaleoGeekSquared
Neanderthal by Dunkleosteus77
Alpine newt by Tylototriton
Secretarybird by LittleJerry, Aa77zz and Casliber
List of ursids by PresN
Borchgrevinkium by Super Dromaeosaurus
Caryodendron orinocense by CPC273
Siamosaurus by PaleoGeekSquared
Canada lynx by Sainsf
Vietnam mouse-deer by Sainsf
Jaguarundi by Sainsf
Vermilion flycatcher by CaptainEek
Alice Gray by Rhododendrites
Gigantopithecus by Dunkleosteus77
Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale by Yewtharaptor
Meerkat by Sainsf

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name. 

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter

Shortcut
May 2020—Issue 014


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

Lythronax by FunkMonk, Lythronaxargestes and IJReid
Meerkat by Sainsf, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
Borchgrevinkium by Super Dromaeosaurus, reviewed by Amitchell125
Nakalipithecus by Dunkleosteus77, reviewed by Gog the Mild
Scanisaurus by Ichthyovenator, reviewed by Gog the Mild
Sand cat by BhagyaMani, reviewed by Aven13
Pigs in culture by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Sainsf
Sun bear by Sainsf, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
Megacephalosaurus by Macrophyseter, reviewed by Aven13
Cinnamon red bat by Enwebb, reviewed by Dunkleosteus77
Banteng by Sainsf, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
Cartorhynchus by Lythronaxargestes, reviewed by Dunkleosteus77
Black-footed cat by BhagyaMani, reviewed by Amitchell125
Homo ergaster by Ichthyovenator, reviewed by Dunkleosteus77
Black coral by Aven13, reviewed by Sainsf
Heuglin's gazelle by Sainsf, reviewed by The Rambling Man
Australopithecus garhi by Dunkleosteus77, reviewed by Hog Farm
Chororapithecus by Dunkleosteus77, reviewed by IJReid
Ornithocheiromorpha by JurassicClassic767, reviewed by IJReid






Newly nominated content

Gigantorhynchus by Mattximus
Leech by LittleJerry, Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth
List of mephitids by PesN
Sand cat by BhagyaMani
Cinnamon red bat by Enwebb
Kristianstad Basin by Ichthyovenator
Nakalipithecus by Dunkleosteus77
Scanisaurus by Ichthyovenator
Sun bear by Sainsf
Heuglin's gazelle by Sainsf
Black coral by Aven13
Australopithecus garhi by Dunkleosteus77
Chororapithecus by Dunkleosteus77
Northern crested newt by Tylototriton
Megacephalosaurus by Macrophyseter
Banteng by Sainsf
Cartorhynchus by Lythronaxargestes
Ornithocheiromorpha by JurassicClassic767
Black-footed cat by BhagyaMani
Bat virome by Enwebb
Echinodon by IJReid
Homo ergaster by Ichthyovenator
Dwarf dog-faced bat by Enwebb
Doedicurus by Dunkleosteus77
Zebra by LittleJerry

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name. 

Enwebb (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

June/July 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter

Shortcut
June and July 2020—Issue 015


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

Canada lynx by Sainsf
Gigantorhynchus by Mattximus
Leech by LittleJerry, Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth
Orangutan by LittleJerry
Secretarybird by LittleJerry, Aa77zz and Casliber
Vermilion flycatcher by CaptainEek
Bat virome by Enwebb, reviewed by Chidgk1
Doedicurus by Dunkleosteus77, reviewed by Hog Farm
Dwarf dog-faced bat by Enwebb, reviewed by Dunkleosteus77
Echinodon by IJReid, reviewed by JurassicClassic767
Edvard August Vainio by Esculenta, reviewed by ChiswickCahp
Hammer-headed bat by Enwebb, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
Homo rudolfensis by Dunkleosteus77, reviewed by JurassicClassic767
Nina Demme by SusunW, reviewed by Enwebb
Northern crested newt by Tylototriton, reviewed by Enwebb
Pterodactylus by JurassicClassic767, reviewed by ChiswickCahp
Zebra by LittleJerry, reviewed by Dunkleosteus77

Newly nominated content

Horseshoe bat by Enwebb
Siamosaurus by PaleoGeekSquared
Zebra by LittleJerry
Australopithecus afarensis by Dunkleosteus77
Australopithecus africanus by Dunkleosteus77
Australopithecus bahrelghazali by Dunkleosteus77
Australopithecus deyiremeda by Dunkleosteus77
Australopithecus sediba by Dunkleosteus77
Bonelli's eagle by Sandhillcrane
Great flying fox by Enwebb
Homo habilis by Dunkleosteus77
Markham's storm petrel by Therapyisgood
Ornithocheiridae by JurassicClassic767
Paranthropus aethiopicus by Dunkleosteus77
Paranthropus boisei by Dunkleosteus77
Paranthropus robustus by Dunkleosteus77
Tatenectes by Slate Weasel

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Delivered on behalf of Enwebb (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.


Delivered on behalf of Enwebb (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

August 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.


Delivered on behalf of Enwebb (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of (Conothoa)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on (Conothoa) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Pichpich (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Let it be known that I fully agree with this as that was a complete mistake on my part.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Big Cats

Hey, so this cats: caracal, serval, clouded leopard, Sunda clouded leopard and all the lynx are big enough to be considered a big cat, why dont you add them???? Sorry for bad english. Rogerio980Pizza (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, they are not considered big cats; that term is reserved for the Panthera species, the cougar, and the cheetah. Please stop making disruptive edits.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

But they are big enough, can you just put that think that i added: A more liberal and expansive definition of the term includes species outside of Panthera including the caracal, serval, clouded leopard, Sunda clouded leopard, and sometimes the several lynx species, although these added species also do not roar. Just to remind people, please. Rogerio980Pizza (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Given that several of those species are, in fact, small enough to breed with domestic cats, no, they did not count as big cats. Additionally I, having researched felids extensively, have never seen the term applied to them by a reliable source, which your reference is not.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

This channel of big cats says that the lynx, caracal and serval are big cats. I thought it was official because the channel is too famous. And, the eurasian lynx, the canada lynx, bobcat, caracal and serval are actually big compared to normal cats, they really are big cats. Rogerio980Pizza (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS, and to be honest, I am not really the best person to explain this. That said, the vast majority of websites and youtubes channels are not considered reliable sources for the purpose of Wikipedia. And again, several of those species are not that large; the serval, caracal, and bobcat, off the top of my head, have all successfully bred with domestic house cats. Also, it is considered good etiquette to sign your posts by putting four tildes (~) after it. SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

ok, i will leave just a note on the page at least about this cats. Rogerio980Pizza (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

hi SilverTiger12, i notice you have been removing the cats wikiproject from a large number of fictional cat/book talkpages! the thing is, the scope of that project is "This project deals with the creation and editing of articles related to cats, including both real and fictional cats." so just wondering what your reasoning for this is?

Coolabahapple (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I explained most of this in an update on the WikiProject's talk page (under the Major Update subsection), but to reiterate: many of those articles can be better covered by different WikiProjects, do not really have much to do with cats as real animals, and only bog down an already small WikiProject. Basically, if it doesn't easily relate to actual cats, I'm removing it. That said, I did bring it up for discussion at the WikiProject talk page in hopes of getting actual consensus rather than just what I think. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I basically agree that the scope of the WikiProject Cats should be real cats, both wild species and breeds, but excluding fictional ones. Latter is the scope of a WikiProject Arts -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, although I ask that you voice it at the section I opened to discuss. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I just did. I came here for sth. else and saw above comm. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cats in comic strips

A tag has been placed on Category:Cats in comic strips requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 18:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Help with Freshpet?

Thank you for your thorough review of Talk:Freshpet#Request Edits February 12 2021. I know there were a lot of requests! Do you happen to have time to finish up? #8, #9, #10 of the requests which remain unreviewed. Also, could you consider the following:

Please delete the flag on top of the article, above the infobo - Advert|date=February 2021
'Explanation: promotional content has been removed as a result of these Request Edits. The article is now significantly shorter and neutral.

I posted this on the Talk page for the article as well, so it would be public for everyone, but wanted to reach out to you here as well.

Thank you! NJ0220 (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Complaint about edit warrior

I filed a complaint at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_warring_on_Panthera_pardus_tulliana against this idiot. You might want to defend your case when the admins come around. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I was getting tired of sitting on the article... luckily, that kind of behavior is indefensible and unacceptable so I hope it will end soon. Although meatpuppetry and/or sockpuppetry might be a concern. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, let's hope he doesn't come through with that promise. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
SilverTiger12, as a warning, you should familiarise yourself with the WP:3RR. If you go past 3 reverts on a single page within a 24 hour period you risk being blocked. Just because the other guy is wrong and also edit warring doesn't give you the right to edit war. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Bornean ferret badger article

I just wanted to thank you for your contributions to and suggestions for this article. - Ghost1590 (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Deprodding of Tjololo

I am leaving this message to let you know that the article Tjololo that you tagged for Proposed Deletion was removed by another user, and they failed to leave a note on your talk page about it, and their reason for doing so was inaccurate. As you were not informed, I have taken it upon myself to leave this here so you may consider perusing Articles for Deletion instead, as adding a new PROD is not permitted. Kind regards, --Tautomers(T C) 08:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd noticed the de-prodding already and felt his "explanation" was inadequate, but I'm not sure I have the energy or know-how to take it to AfD. Thank you for taking the time to tell me, though. Happy editing, --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Leptofelis

Hi. I see you reverted my change regarding speciesbox. Per Template:speciesbox#Monspecific_genera, speciesbox should be used over automatic taxobox in cases with monotypic species, which appears to be the case here. Porqaz (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Information icon Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It is especially important to use an edit summary when tagging a page for deletion, particularly PRODs. Please do so in the future. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

For being a voice of reason on that talk page. I have described the article as the worst article on Wikipedia for five years, and I'm aware of what a pain it is to deal with. Honestly, I think it should be deleted since it's basically just speculation and synthesis of sourcing, but if there are people who are willing to work on making it less bad, I'm fine with that as well for now :) An AfD would be a pain and would be easier to deal with once all the sources have been cleaned up anyway. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I've tried cleaning parts of it, but it somehow never gets much better. Thanks for cleaning up the opinions section, though. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Response

I really do not know who is that guy your talking about, i would appreciate if you gave me more info of him. "This isn't the place to debate the supposed naturalness of ligers". I was asking to debate n my page. And am not asking weather their natural or not, am ask if its fine for them to exist considering that Humans breed with Neanderthals and the fact that the eastern coyote was the result f crossbreeding between Coyotes and Wolfs. Panthera hybrids are no different as in all three cases its between species of the same genus. And you have to remember that natural\unnatural=\=good or bad. I suppose yo shouldn't brush your teeth as that's unnatural, right? And at some point ligers possibly did happen:https://markgelbart.wordpress.com/tag/tiger-x-snow-leopard-hybrid/ .People also thought that Brown bear and Polar Bear hybrids where unnatural as they did no happened in the wild, and look now, there are starting to hybridize. Not to mention there is evidence that lions crossbreed with snow leopards, who are closely related to tigers. "and sterility is in fact considered unhealthy" the fact that its considered doe snot mean its true. Also, female ligers are always fertile, male usually are sterile but their is a small percentage for them to be fertile. There was the case of a fertile mule in Texas. And ive seen lots of male sterile Ligers that appear to be fine. And the reason why am making this debate is so people can get the right information so we can make sure the page does not misinform the viewer. I've tried to change the page multiple times so i could present the correct information but it appears that unless i can convince them otherwise, Wikipedians wont let me make the changes. Many Wikipedians are so biased towards reading articles that they never question if the articles in question are factually correct or if they contain outdated information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 05:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The sth. else

You may have noticed that a novice editor added refs as WP:BAREURLS to pages. S/he's been doing this to other pages not about cats as well, despite multiple calls to learn to WP:CITEHOW and in disregard of the quality ratings of those pages. Would you please help to keep especially FA and GA rated pages free of bare urls ? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Certainly. I have all the cat species, subspecies, and other taxa up to family on my watchlist and I check that frequently. I'm generally busy but reverts aren't that difficult. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks!! S/he's so stubbornly resisting to learn that I wonder which language s/he understands. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
S/he also added erroneous statements that you may have seen, which I reverted. So I think, we need to carefully check their additions to pages, as not all may be trustworthy. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Come on guys, don't talk behind my back, that's no fun :( Instead, tell me directly, like adults! :^) Ddum5347 (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I tried to, but alas, you didn't care and re-added false claims. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
(outdent) If you'd remember to cite correctly and not add false statements, there wouldn't be a problem. Also, BhagyaMani, it looks like our persistent friend is back at Big cat- I just undid yet another edit of theirs that was basically identical to the previous ones. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
O, I removed this page from my watchlist a couple of months ago. Imo, this is such an odd compilation of statements that I rather contribute to pages that have been on my watchlist for yeeears. But if you think that I can help, do let me know, and I will if time allows. I'll have a look now. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree, the term "Big cat" is such an odd, paraphyletic grouping that it doesn't really make much sense, but it is also a popular term, so I mostly keep it on my watchlist to prevent vandalism. The notice is just so you're aware if they go back to the other cat articles they were so insistent were big cats. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I re-added the page to my watchlist and will revert this kid's stubborn silly additions, if needed. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Actually, Ddum5347, a lot of your most recent edits to the cat species seem mostly constructive. Therefore, I recommend a period of sticking to fixing mistakes while you figure out how to correctly add cited information. People forget that WikiGnoming is important too.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Good advice !! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
All the edits I make are in good conscience. I never vandalise. If you have a problem with them, then talk to me about it directly. And you say you're not stalking me lol Ddum5347 (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
None of us accused you of vandalising. And I did address you directly in several edit summaries. Re stalking: don't you worry, I have many pages on my watchlist long before you decided to pass by them. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you also see the block logs on your watchlist ? The first that the guy is blocked for 31 hours, and the 2nd that block is extended to 2 weeks after review. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. I am kind of realized given the sheer number of edits they did - my watchlist just has the cats and it seemed like half the edits showing up were theirs. Really rather exhausting, honestly. At this point, I'm not sure if they shouldn't just be blocked permanently. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
In the past 10 years, I did not have as many revert alerts in such short intervals as by them. And not only on cat pages: they also reverted lots of edits by other users. I learned counting to 4 in pre-school, and you? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I also learned how to count to 4 in pre-school, like most people. From what I can tell is they're rapid-fire editing all across the animal pages. I just hope that this issue resolves itself soon, but I doubt it will be a peaceful resolution.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Well yes, they are quite a high flyer, but nowhere added content with care for appropriate source. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey: hope you are well!! Once you have time, please comment at the Bengal tiger RfC by a new kid on the block. S/he has <10 edits on the page itself, all withOUT adding a new reference, but > a dozen edits on talk page + ~dozen on my talk page about Bengal tiger + 36 edits at ANI complaining about me re same tiger. You and I and lots of others I know would rather use 60 edits for contributing sth. useful, won't we? Cheers – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Leopard edits

Refer to [4] for discussion. BhagyaMani has not reverted so I assume they take no issue with my edits either. Groovehx (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

On no other page did anyone think it necessary to place an int link to a continent on which a part of a country is located. Or would you e.g. write Peru in South America ? – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I believe it was especially notable in this case, since Southern Russia is the only region in Europe with wild leopards. I don't appreciate the condescending tone. Groovehx (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@BhagyaMani and SilverTiger12: As a note, it appears Groovehx is a sockpuppet of Ddum5347‎, see the open investigation.--Kevmin § 20:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, Kevmin !! Am not really surprised, as I also noticed the similarity of their edits, in particular insistence on adding int links to Europe on this and another page. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@SilverTiger12, Kevmin, and BhagyaMani: Hi there. So sorry for abruptly joining your discussion this way. I came across this talk page by way of a tool used in the aforementioned investigation. Since you've all interacted with Groovehx, I wanted to bring to your attention that there is a "Comments by other users" section there for you to present evidence if you'd like to do so, whether that's to further confirm any suspicion or discredit it. Thank you! KyleJoantalk 01:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
You do NOT need to be sorry!! It took me a while to collate these diffs: Groovehx's first edits on the leopard page, next and again reminded me of Ddum5347's insistence on keeping the same int link at the same page in May 2021. And while I was still pondering over coincidence, the sockpuppetry was confirmed and case closed. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice, although to be honest I only really noticed the disruption he cause on Panthera pardus tulliana this time around, and that article is a trouble magnet. It seems the investigation went swiftly, though. Happy editing, --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter – 018

Shortcut
February 2022—Issue 018


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

Black-and-yellow broadbill by AryKun
Papuan mountain pigeon by AryKun
List of leporids by PresN
Algerian nuthatch by 2001:4455:364:A800:C13C:8A64:1CEF:F186, reviewed by AryKun
Jungle bush quail by AryKun, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
Lycorma imperialis by Etriusus, reviewed by Ealdgyth
Harry Allan by Dracophyllum, reviewed by Esculenta
Banded bullfrog by DanCherek, reviewed by GhostRiver

Newly nominated content

Queen angelfish by LittleJerry
Red panda by LittleJerry and BhagyaMani
List of lagomorphs by PresN
Corsican nuthatch by 2001:4455:364:A800:39A6:A5D8:C903:5E1D
Firefly by Chiswick Chap
Mountain pigeon by AryKun
Bonacynodon by Trilletrollet
Golden eagle by Vaco98

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

In response to you undoing my edits, I really do not know who is that guy your talking about, i would appreciate if you gave me more info of him. "This isn't the place to debate the supposed naturalness of ligers". I was asking to debate n my page. And am not asking weather their natural or not, am ask if its fine for them to exist considering that Humans breed with Neanderthals and the fact that the eastern coyote was the result f crossbreeding between Coyotes and Wolfs. Panthera hybrids are no different as in all three cases its between species of the same genus. And you have to remember that natural\unnatural=\=good or bad. I suppose yo shouldn't brush your teeth as that's unnatural, right? And at some point ligers possibly did happen:https://markgelbart.wordpress.com/tag/tiger-x-snow-leopard-hybrid/ .People also thought that Brown bear and Polar Bear hybrids where unnatural as they did no happened in the wild, and look now, there are starting to hybridize. Not to mention there is evidence that lions crossbreed with snow leopards, who are closely related to tigers. "and sterility is in fact considered unhealthy" the fact that its considered doe snot mean its true. Also, female ligers are always fertile, male usually are sterile but their is a small percentage for them to be fertile. There was the case of a fertile mule in Texas. And ive seen lots of male sterile Ligers that appear to be fine. And the reason why am making this debate is so people can get the right information so we can make sure the page does not misinform the viewer. I've tried to change the page multiple times so i could present the correct information but it appears that unless i can convince them otherwise, Wikipedians wont let me make the changes. Many Wikipedians are so biased towards reading articles that they never question if the articles in question are factually correct or if they contain outdated information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 05:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs)

Red panda FAC

Hello, would you be able to review red panda for FAC? I think we just need one more review. We already have two content reviews, an image review and a source review. Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life/Newsletter/019

Shortcut
March 2022—Issue 019


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

Queen angelfish by LittleJerry
Alaska marmot by An anonymous username, not my real name, reviewed by Ealdgyth
Firefly by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Ealdgyth
Afrolychas braueri by OnlyFixingProse, reviewed by An anonymous username, not my real name
Mountain pigeon by AryKun, reviewed by Ealdgyth
Dracopristis by Fossiladder13, reviewed by Ealdgyth
Bonacynodon by Trilletrollet, reviewed by AryKun
Lichexanthone by Esculenta, reviewed by Szmenderowiecki
Yellowtail flounder by Eviolite, reviewed by RecycledPixels
Sexual selection by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by AryKun

Newly nominated content

White-headed fruit dove by AryKun
Mountain pigeon by AryKun
Florence Merriam Bailey by GhostRiver
Agelenopsis pennsylvanica by Kline
Hypericum aegypticum by Fritzmann
Guadeloupe woodpecker by OnlyFixingProse

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

White Tiger

I don't get how would Landorus be irrelevant as a link on the White Tiger page. Its Therian Forme is inspired by the White Tiger, so why did you remove it? --Keyacom (💬 | 🖊) 19:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Landorus is not relevant to the White Tiger article because it is merely one of many pop-culture creatures/characters based on the mythological figure. Listing them in the See Also section adds no value, grants no help in further understanding, the topic of the article. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Instead of removing links, you could at least have created an "In popular culture" section. That would fit the most. --Keyacom (💬 | 🖊) 20:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Since "In Popular culture sections are heavily discouraged, that would have only aggravated the problem. SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Tiger

Hello. Bit confused by your changes to my recent edit at Tiger. Firstly, it now diverges from the reference I used, you seem to have removed the trinomials, and it is perfectly possible to have a trinomial junior synonym for a species. Secondly, you removed {{Species list}}, the correct use of which italicises the binomials (and trinomials), as well as making the authorities small. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter – 020

Shortcut
April 2022—Issue 020


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

Red panda by LittleJerry and BhagyaMani
White-headed fruit dove by AryKun
List of ochotonids by PresN
Guadeloupe woodpecker by OnlyFixingProse, reviewed by Ealdgyth
Magnetoreception by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Mover of molehills
Macauley Island by Jo-Jo Eumerus, reviewed by Ealdgyth
Black-breasted buttonquail by Casliber, reviewed by Ealdgyth
Florence Merriam Bailey by GhostRiver, reviewed by SquareInARoundHole

Newly nominated content

Black-breasted buttonquail by Casliber
List of birds of Tuvalu by AryKun
List of cingulates by PresN
List of didelphimorphs by PresN
Stegotherium by Larrayal
Resplendent quetzal by SadAttorney613
Electroreception and electrogenesis by Chiswick Chap
Muja (alligator) by Amanuensis Balkanicus
Punctelia graminicola by Esculenta
Siegfried Huneck by Esculenta
Abiogenesis by Chiswick Chap

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Leopard lead image

Talk:Leopard#Lead image here posted a new potnetial lead image for the leopard article. May be you want to participate. Best,--Altaileopard (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Stalking

Hi, how come you are wiki-stalking me through me edits at Wikipedia? Do you not have anything better to do with your time? Duck Dawny (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not stalking you, I watchlisted Category:Cats in folklore (among many other cats and cat-related articles). SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I do not mind constructive changes to the articles or +Cats I start; just not wiki-stalking through my edits. Thank you Duck Dawny (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:List of columbids

Information icon Hello, SilverTiger12. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of columbids, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 04:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Finding common ground?

Hey @SilverTiger12 — thanks for your comments on the RfC regarding Vector 2022. I'm trying to connect with some editors to better understand their perspective, and how they are weighing the tradeoffs here. I have a hunch that on a deeper level (beyond typography preferences, or aesthetic preferences about whitespace, etc.) we all share some common goals (we being the volunteer editors, and the product folks at the WMF). So, this is kind of an experimental conversation but, if you're willing to engage...from the data we see people searching more, and using the table of contents more to explore articles more deeply. We don't see a decline in any datapoints. Ultimately this means more readers will be exploring and reading more Wikipedia content with Vector 2022. If we zoom out and look a the big picture, is that not the overarching goal here? To share knowledge with the world and have them come engage with it? Logged-in users can customize the interface as they choose. If the data shows increased engagement from logged-out people, would that not be a win for the movement as a whole? I'm trying to understand if editors share this larger goal (and if not, what their larger goals are), and how to focus the conversation on that, versus smaller differences in aesthetic preferences.

Any response you are willing to offer is greatly appreciated. I am not trying to convince you of anything, I am rather trying to deepen my own understanding of how people are thinking about the tradeoffs here.

Thanks, AHollender (WMF) (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

My goal is for a good interface that works for both editors and readers. A small sticky bar at the top with the search bar works, but not a sticky sidebar and top bar. Choose one or the other, both is aggravating.
The limited width is the absolute worst, as it makes Wikipedia look like a tabloid. I also edit on Fandom, which has a similarly lesser width than Wikipedia currently does, and the lesser width is problematic at times. SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of columbids

Hello, SilverTiger12. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of columbids".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

the lion mergers

Hi SilverTiger12: please have a brief look at these earlier versions of the two probable merger pages: 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panthera_leo_melanochaita&oldid=860922252 and 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panthera_leo_leo&oldid=861740256 >> if we consent to use these as entry points for merging, then it'll be just a matter of moving a few paragraphs from the other pages. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I took a look. Those are nice, but I'm not sure that starting from scratch wouldn't be better (more work, but better flow of words). Also, using those as entry point would mean reverting what has happened in the intervening edits.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Whether they are nice or not, doesn't matter. But more so that these are essentially mergers already, the 1) of Southern and East African lion, and the 2) of West and Central African lion pages. Flow of words can be adjusted, would be much easier than starting from point 0. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I also suggest merger of these two articles- Himalayan Wolf and Mongolian Wolf. The two wolves are same subspecies now. Both are also called the Tibetan Wolf which had a separate article/page previously. Ishan87 (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Cheshire cat

Hello, SilverTiger12. I am a newbie, and would like to learn something from you. You reverted my edit on Cheshire cat. The reasoning is "not notable". Is it not a subjective criteria? Virtually the same piece is living on this page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Any_Road" for quite some time. May be you would like to either revert that section too, or educate me, why this piece is not valid on Cheshire cat page. Thanks. -Anil1956 I am waiting for your answer. It would educate me. Thanks. -Anil1956

Because philosophical or scholarly commentary on a given topic must come from a reputable, scholarly source. Not a popular song. In fact, songs in general are rarely acceptable sources for Wikipedia content. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Barbary lion

Hi,

Why the reverts? It is reliably sourced via WP:RSPSS.


Thank you :) NAADAAN (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Deprodding of Crumbs and Whiskers

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Crumbs and Whiskers, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

See my edit summary notification.

FWIW, you can typically tell pretty easily when a business has conducted a PR campaign since part of that work involves publishing promotional material through widely recognized PR outlets, like PR Newswire. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Deprodding of Dumb Friends League

I completely rewrote Dumb Friends League using only independent refs to address your concerns in your proposed deletion, and have removed the prod tag. Schazjmd (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Homotherium

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Homotherium, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Sardinian lynx

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sardinian lynx, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)
  • A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Cretan wildcat

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Cretan wildcat, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)
  • A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Sardinian wildcat

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sardinian wildcat, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Pot Roast (cat)

Hi SilverTiger12, you might want to amend your PROD to remove BLP1E because the article is about a cat, not a person, so BLP does not apply. :) S0091 (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I've seen BLP1E used for individual animals as well as people, and it gets my point across. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on American cheetah

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page American cheetah, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can (bot)&section=new report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

List of erinaceids

Hi there! Looks like you're getting started with List of erinaceids, but the article is still in very rough shape. Would you object to converting it to a draft until you can get it filled-in? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

List of erinaceids moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to List of erinaceids. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Sivasmilus is a very good article. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Wow, thank you!! I haven't gotten a barnstar before! --SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Your unexplained reversion at Bengal cat

Could you please explain why you reverted my edit at Bengal cat? Reversion of good faith edits w/o good reason is very poor etiquette. --Hadal (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Because the images were not particularly good and did not appreciably add to the article. Specifically, they did not clearly show either the body or coat pattern, and they were not in the corresponding sections for either.
To be more clear, adding images to articles of cat breeds (or really, any breed of pet) tends to be a touchy subject and is discouraged unless it can be clearly adding to the quality of the section and article. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Please use edit summaries in future, and please refrain from making such reverts without discussion based on what amounts subjective reasons. The coat colour/pattern was clearly visible, there was nothing wrong with the image quality, and trying to claim otherwise amounts to justification after the fact.
I see you have been repeatedly asked in the past to better communicate the reasons behind your edits.
Similarly, if you take issue with the positioning of an image in an article this is also not a reason to revert without discussion. Make the changes you think are necessary, rather revert without a word. "I don't like it" is not a reason to revert. Please make more effort to communicate in future. This helps everyone. --Hadal (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
To be honest, I so frequently revert drive-by edits adding people's pets to cat articles that all I do now is check the image, then revert if it a noticeable improvement. Two images of the same cat was also a red flag, in my mind. SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring at British big cats

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Ponyobons mots 19:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I have replied ta Talk:British big cats#Page protection. SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Only because it's you asking

... I've taken a stab at my talk page. But don't expect miracles. EEng 09:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't expect anything, so this is a pleasant surprise! Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Flat headed cat

I understand what the lede is supposed to do, but the information on the cat's dimensions (length and weight) are quite literally a copy and paste from the Description section. It's redundant. Chumzwumz68 (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I recommend you read WP:LEAD and also leads of wiki pages with the quality tags Featured or Good Article. Redundant are your repeated reversals of my edits. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of the "List_of_kakapo" page

Mr SilverTiger12, I understand you are at the origin of the removal of the "list of kakapo" page. While I may understand the concerns you had about this page, it has definitely notability value for the community for numerous reasons:

  • Kakapo recovery program is the most notable, most well-funded and most successful bird recovery program in New Zealand, birds were saved from the absolute brink of extinction. They were given names and so did their offspring, the fact those individual names are so important is because of their limited genepool and the fact that certain birds have to breed in order for the species to survive as a whole (most notably, the offspring of the Fiordland kakapo Richard Henry) - therefor, this information is key.
  • The article is well-sourced - the Twitter, Instagram and Facebook sources come directly from the New Zealand Department of Conservation that lead the program and are as such not a matter of controversy
  • The article is completely up to date with the control of those official sources
  • The article is important for the non-scientific community, as there is no other publicly available source of information for this list of birds
  • Due to the strong emotional bond many people within or outside New Zealnd (such as me) feel to these birds, it is important to have the names, especially since the information is correct
  • One would argue that when a list with no interest whatsoever such as like the succession order to the throne of a country exists, this list would be way more important.
  • To gauge the interest, I would suggest you take a look at takapodigs (Andrew Digby) - the science advisor for the kakapo recovery program page on Twitter, and on the Department of Conservation and Kakapo Recovery and Sirocco the Kakapo pages on Facebook and Instagram to see how thousands of people are literally rabid about the informations you deem uncrucial.

As such, I would ask you to return the page to wikipedia, or at the very least provide me the PDF of the last version of the page, so that at the very least I can follow it on my side and at least keep the info and share it with the (numerous) people interested in it.

Thanks for the read, I hope you take the appropriate measures in either restoring the page or merging it with the kakapo page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PasquiDerder (talk • contribs) 07:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, I was not the one who nominated the list for deletion; that was User:AryKun. I judged the list against Wikipedia policies and felt it violated WP:NOT, was poorly sourced, and generally failed Wikipedia policy. Have a good day. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, SilverTiger’s right, they just voted on the list, I was the one who nominated it. Nobody voted to delete the article because they thought it was incorrect; that isn’t even a valid rationale for deletion under Wikipedia policy. It was deleted because it isn’t notable, in the Wikipedia sense of the word. We do not judge an article’s notability by metrics like followers and subscribers: we need independent, reliable sources (please read that link, most people never do and so sit around arguing against decades of policy as if we’d change it on a whim) like news organizations and academic papers that specifically discuss the subject in depth. The kakapo recovery program as a whole has been widely discussed and probably needs an article; you can help write one! But a list of every living kakapo is clearly not notable, because no RS discusses them in depth in a way that would establish their notability. Finally, if all you want is a copy of the article, you can probably get the last resign over at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. AryKun (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I understand the rationale, but again, the sources mentionned are literally reliable since they stem directly from the highest government office in New Zealand, and I disagree with the list not being notable.
Now, this deletion absolutely crushes me on a personal level since it was my only way of closely monitoring this bird population through carefully crafted data by reliable sources. Is there a way you can at least send me the text of the article or like put it up again for 48 hours so that I download the data I need at least for my culture and then y'all are free to cancel it again, even, and I can't emphasize this enough, the list is notable and reliable and the deletion is a real loss of knowledge for the world? Thanks for your answer and open to talk more (I just need the data of who the dads and moms are of the living birds) PasquiDerder (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Just go over to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion and make a request to have the page restored to your userspace: you can copy it and if you come up with a better version of the page that covers the entire conservation program and is not just a list of individual birds, submit it to Articles for Creation. AryKun (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I made the request as you suggested and the administrator there just flatly told me no, could you please explain it to him, so that yeah, it just goes to my userspace and to nobody else's since the topic of a list of birds seems to put so many people on the fence. PasquiDerder (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
You didn't request for it to be put into your userspace. You made a general flailing on how it's a decent article and well sourced and has person impact on you. Please read what people tell you is correct process for getting what you want, instead of hearing part of it, failing to comply, and then complaining you didn't get what you want. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
And I would gladly write an article on the kakapo recovery programm, but the "List of kakapo" page is literally the best immaginable page to start and the best source trove which is now lost to people like me who are not admin. PasquiDerder (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Leopardus narinensis

On 27 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Leopardus narinensis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the newly discovered red tigrina may already be extinct? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Leopardus narinensis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Leopardus narinensis), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Hook update
Your hook reached 18,788 views (782.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of July 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
  • On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Information icon Hello, I'm Anaxial. I noticed that you recently removed sourced content from Lynx without adequately explaining why, replacing it (perhaps unintentionally) with an unsourced and inaccurate claim. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.Thanks. Anaxial (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The reference isn't needed in the taxobox and just clutters it, and the claim I made is cited later on. I was changing it to match the usual pattern of taxoboxes. SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Lynx, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Instead of deleting sourced information and replacing it with an unsourced claim contradicted by reliable sources please familiarise yourself with the rules on the naming of type species (available both at that WP article, and here, in the example under rule 67.1), in particular noting that the name that must be listed is not necessarily the current scientific name of the species in question. Anaxial (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Table of names for hybrids

I added columns Jagupardess, Ligress, and Tigoness; and added

  • Tiliger, Titigon, Lijagulep, Liliger, Litigon

you reverted these edits saying "Uncited"

there is a literally a page on all of them:

>>> Webclouddat (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

i will let you see this before reverting so there isnt a back-and-forth Webclouddat (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
You were reverted because none of your additions had citations. Which is unacceptable. SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
no other cell in the table had citations...
and the citations were the other wiki pages on them... Webclouddat (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained Reversion at Ragdoll

Hi, I just wanted to ask about your reversion of my edit including extra information about tortie point ragdolls, that they aren't the same as calicos. I may be new, but as others have pointed out, I don't think reverting good faith edits without reasoning is particularly good etiquette. -- AnteaterStim (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I reverted because the source appeared to be an unreliable one. SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
The sources I used are of similar quality to other sources in the article. One of them (thehappycatsite) is already used elsewhere on the page, as well as having its own reference list at the bottom of the page. So respectfully, I disagree. AnteaterStim (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
They again reverted good edits in Panthera hybrid.
They do have many hints they are a good user, but the unexplained/[with bad explanations] reverts are not good.
>>> Webclouddat (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you good faith?

  1. Before, you reverted my edits to the table "You were reverted because none of your additions had citations. Which is unacceptable.", while the citations were the links
  2. Now, you just deleted the table for the names of hybrid panthera species.
  3. then you reverted the edit changing a link to Hellabrunn Zoo (which is whats it called btw) (it also changed jagupard to jagulep; but those are synonyms)
    • at the same time, you also reverted the edit adding a paragraph.

do you have a want to control everything??

>>> Webclouddat (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

u also seem to have a history (in history section) of reverting many other edits. which may or may not be good faith.
>>> Webclouddat (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I frequently revert edits because I tend to wiki-gnome, that is, keep an eye on things rather than carry out major expansions. I deleted the table for being unreferenced after you so kindly pointed that out. And the "Hellbrun Zoo" mentioned in Panthera hybrid does not seem to be the same as the "Hellabrunn Zoo"- they are stated as being in different locations (Hellbrun is in Austria, Hellabrunn is in Germany). SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
then please somehow specify that its Salzburg Zoo Hellbrunn, in Hellbrunn Palace
I pointed out "no other cell in the table had citations", not that there were no citations for the items in the table. One does not generally put citations inside tables with info found elsewhere in article.
Sources that you so dearly want:
>>> Webclouddat (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Most of the linked names did not have articles, though, and were merely redirects; some of them did in fact lack any citation supporting use of the name anyway. SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Even if you're wiki gnoming (that is, making smaller incremental edits rather than larger or more significant edits), that doesn't refer to the reverting other people's work without giving reasons or without trying to improve on the content that's there. Referring to policies, WP:TWABUSE says:
If a change is merely "unsatisfactory" in some way, undoing/reverting should not be the first response. Editors should either make a reasonable attempt to improve the change, or should simply leave it in place for future editors to improve. Undo/revert is appropriate in cases where the contribution is arguably "wrong" (consider moving it to the Talk page), or is unreasonably difficult to fix (e.g. incomprehensible, and the author is unresponsive), or is actually harmful to the article (such as vandalism). A plain language edit summary (not merely tags) should be used when reverting changes that appear to have been made in good faith because many contributors will not recognize minimalistic tags and will not learn what the problem was and are likely to repeat it.
And WP:REVERT says:
Consider carefully before reverting, as it rejects the contributions of another editor, and all others' after the edit in question. Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reverting it? Can you revert only part of the edit, or do you need to revert the whole thing? (The latter option is better executed through an undo action.)
In the edit summary or on the talk page, succinctly explain why the change you are reverting was a bad idea or why reverting it is a better idea. In cases of blatant vandalism, uncontroversially disruptive changes or unexplained removals, the amount of explanation needed is minimal. But in the event of a content dispute, a convincing, politely-worded explanation gains much importance and avoids unnecessary disputes.
(Bold added for emphasis on specific points.) -- AnteaterStim (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
ty for helping me i cant argue :)
>>> Webclouddat (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Cats on the Internet

You reverted my edit without leaving a reason, nor attempting to improve what was there. Can you please explain your action? Thank you. CTR1874 (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

If I don't hear back from you soon I will restore my edits. They were valid and sourced and contributed to the article in a substantive way. CTR1874 (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The list of celebrity cats in that article holds to a high bar, and your addition lacked any evidence of long-term coverage and significance. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, no disrespect intended, but you're going to need to do better than that. The list of celebrity cats in that article includes three that have little or no relevance at all. The impact of Tater Tot - a kitten who only lived a month and a half - is quite large and international in scope. People are getting tattoos, creating social media groups, and having events. You haven't read any of the references, or followed what has been happening otherwise you'd realize that what you said is not correct. CTR1874 (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
And yet, it is still a short-term interest as of yet. I don't see any indication of long-term significance. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I have to agree with SilverTiger12 here. Tater Tot has had a large impact, at the moment, which is undeniable. However, to be on the same level as Grumpy Cat, I would have to disagree. Tater Tot was born not even 3 months ago, and his death - arguably the catalyst for his fame (he was popular beforehand, but his death is what catapulted him to this level) - was not even one month ago.
If keyboard cat doesn't even get to count as a celebrity, or PeePee, or Floppa, then I think it's far too early for Tater Tot to achieve this status. Perhaps he will be a large phenomenon and a celebrity, in time, but as SilverTiger12 says - there's no evidence that this is long-term significance. <>=< AnteaterStim (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Please stop restoring predatory journal citations e.g. [5]

These are not reliable sources and should not be cited on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It's also the only good citation for that species. SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
If so, then it's WP:UNDUE and fails WP:V. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter Issue 21

Shortcut
August 2023—Issue 021


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

Australiformis by Mattximus
Rodrigues night heron by FunkMonk
Titanis by Augustios Paleo
List of lorisoids by PresN
List of storks by AryKun
Brontosaurus by Augustios Paleo, reviewed by The Morrison Man
Eukaryote by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Fritzmann2002
Stramenopile by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Fritzmann2002
Titanoboa by Augustios Paleo, reviewed by SilverTiger12
Antarctopelta by Augustios Paleo, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
Anna Blackburne by Kusma, reviewed by Etriusus
Anomochilus leonardi by AryKun, reviewed by Amitchell125
Nyctibatrachus manalari by AryKun, reviewed by Sammi Brie
Mimodactylus by FunkMonk, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
Nyctibatrachus major by AryKun, reviewed by Etriusus
Anomochilus weberi by AryKun, reviewed by Etriusus
Plant by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Cessaune

Newly nominated content

Ohmdenosaurus by Jens Lallensack
Polar bear by LittleJerry
Mimodactylus by FunkMonk
List of cercopithecoids by PresN
List of tapaculos by AryKun
Klallamornis by Larrayal
Hypericum perforatum by Fritzmann2002
Holozoa by Snoteleks
Teloschistaceae by Esculenta
Carcharodontosaurus by Augustios Paleo
Nyctibatrachus radcliffei by AryKun
Anomochilus by AryKun


Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Polar bear

Hello. Would you be able to review the article for FAC? LittleJerry (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I had thought there were already enough reviewers and so refrained. SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

author[#]

Please don't use |author[#]= for "Lastname, Firstname" data. It is an alias of |last[#]=, and |author[#]= is only for organizational authors (committees, etc.). If you do |author1=Milosevic, Irena then you are polluting the last-name data with given names. The proper format is |last1=Milosevic|first1=Irena. They are separate parameters for a reason. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't know the difference in usage. I just used whichever parameter I felt up to using (last/first when I wasn't feeling lazy, author when I was), yes, very terrible of me. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter Issue 22

Shortcut
September 2023—Issue 022


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

List of cercopithecoids by PresN
List of tapaculos by AryKun
Polar bear by Little Jerry
Ohmdenosaurus by Jens Lallensack
Amargatitanis by Augustios Paleo, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
Teloschistaceae by Esculenta, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
Holozoa by Snoteleks, reviewed by Esculenta
Ashy flycatcher by AryKun, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
Nyctibatrachus radcliffei by AryKun, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
Carcharodontosaurus by Augustios Paleo, reviewed by SilverTiger12
Life by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
Apatosaurinae by Augustios Paleo, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
Hypericum perforatum by Fritzmann2002, reviewed by Femke

Newly nominated content

Mountain pigeon by AryKun
List of hominoids by PresN
List of cranes by AryKun
List of tarsiiformes by PresN
Lycorma meliae by Etriusus
Aristonectes by Amirani1746
Animal echolocation by Chiswick Chap
Hyalospheniidae by Snoteleks
Buellia frigida by Snoteleks


Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Jungle cat subspecies

A tag has been placed on Category:Jungle cat subspecies indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 19:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dinofelis. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SilverTiger12/Archive_1&oldid=1239351115"