User talk:TableManners/a01

Phelps Group

Thanks for tagging that, I didn't realize it was spam at the time. I got it from an WP:AFC entry. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 21:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just trying to help out. TableManners 02:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re. AfD and lists

You presented your arguments quite well. I've watchlisted the AfD, and will do my best to ensure the correct response...but we'll have to keep arguing :) Giggy ^Talk 04:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Script

I assume that you are looking for something more concise/automatic than adding things like {{db-bio}}. I don't know of anything, but I don't have a computing science background anyway. I tend to have a stock of frequently used phrases which I paste into my replies to "Why did you delete my article" and similar queries. Jimfbleak 06:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that your user page says that deleted articles are gone for good. This is not actually correct. Admins can view and restore any version of any deleted article with its history. This is useful for restoration if the deletion was inappropriate, viewing to see text for response to "Why did you delete my article" and copying deleted text to a sandbox for editors who want to work on it to produce a proper article Jimfbleak 06:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will change the user page to reflect that. TableManners 07:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing wikilinks to redirects

{{helpme}} I need help fixing more than 400 articles that have a wikilink to a redirect. wikilink to a redirect. These articles point to embers_of_Polish_Sejm_2005-2009 but should instead point to List of Sejm members (2005–2009). Is there a way to create a bot to automatically do such a daunting task? Thanks. TableManners 03:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can post a request, and someone with a bot account will change them. Or, see the page about Auto Wiki Browser if you're interested in doing this yourself.--Werdan7^{T @} 04:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I posed a request at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Search.2Freplace_bot_request_with_some_complicated_parsing.. I will look at your other links, too. Appreciate your help. TableManners 06:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Booz2Go

Hi, I have an elderly chemistry degree, and whilst I wouldn't like to say that it's impossible, it doesn't seem very likely. I think there is a question of notability too, given the absence of a primary source. As you say, it can always be recreated if it's a real thing, thanks, Jimfbleak 05:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ring-necked Pheasant

I assume that all your edits were in good faith, but I've effectively reverted back to before your long series of edits because of the disruption they caused, I've also moved moved the article back to the correct title. Pheasant is not a subpage of Ring-necked, nor is Green Pheasant, "monickers"? - this is an encyclopaedia, the names given even if referenced (most aren't) are very local and parochial, esp for a bird that isn't even native to the US. It's possible that I might have removed some valid edits too, but it was just too difficult to sort out the mess. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I can see no justification for Ring-necked being the most common name - it might be in the US, but this is a global encyclopaedia, and unless it is referenced as the most common name worldwide, the original name should be restored - see also WP:OR. However, before I move it to Common Pheasant (capitalised as per agreed convention), I'll give you an opportunity to reference the move to Ring-necked. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually restored a couple of your edits, but it's difficult to sort out the confusion between the family, the species, subspecies, hybrids and colour variation. Sorry if this all seems a bit brusque. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I pointed out that it was EU centric here. I'm trying to restore. I'm sure we have some iterations to go through between us. I'd still like to see the game bird section either redone or forked into U.S. v. EU v. Asian hunting. TableManners (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These taxoboxed articles are by definition biology centred, and I think it makes sense to hive off hunting, what you have done is fine. Ideally there should be a similar article for hunting in the US, but there isn't enough, at least on pheasants, yet. The bit about servants in your note amused me, my top hat almost fell off.
Re the Ringnecked/Common, the convention, as I'm sure you know, is that articles written with a particular regional spelling/grammar/name maintain that form. If you moved, say, Arctic Skua to Parasitic Jaeger, or Common Gull to Mew Gull, you would expect war to break out.
I've had Americans before saying "change everything to US, there are more US English speakers than Brit". There are two flaws to this. Firstly it's incorrect (don't forget India) so if the principle was adopted everything would be Britted. Secondly the Wikipedia convention is not decided on numbers.
I'd accept that ring-necked may be widespread in the US, but every bird book I have that deals with the species, (including Madge and McGowan, Pheasants, Partridges and Grouse, the standard family monograph and Birds of Southeast Asia) lists it as Common Pheasant, the only exception are the US Sibley and Nat Geographic guides. Avibase uses ring-necked worldwide, but since it assures me that my local birds include Gray (sic) Wagtail and Mew Gull, that just lacks credibility.
To me, moving Common Pheasant to Ring-necked "because that what we call it in the States" is exactly akin to going through and changing "colour" to "color" - (the other thing that grates is the article that just say "national" instead of "US", presumably on the basis that there's only one nation that matters)
I don't have to source Common as more common - it's for you to show why the Wikipedia policy should be thrown out of the window in this case

Sorry if this is a bit of a rant

Jimfbleak (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nearly forgot moniker is (US) slang, and quite inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. I'll get the butler to change it later. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chambers Dictionary has it as slang, originally tramps' slang (tramp = hobo) Jimfbleak (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. You have me there. Wonder what the OED says. TableManners (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobcat

No problem. Two cents is all I had. Its a non-sensical debate, but could you chime in on the lower case vs. caps of species common names? One being bobcats? Bugguyak (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just chimed in, but I have some more research to do. The practice is so widespread I am wondering if there is some other reason I am missing. Even so, it just seems wrong. TableManners (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization reference

Hi. I've added a reference, as you requested, to the section which explains the use of capitalization in the WP:BIRD articles. The referenced book is the first in a monumental series which is on-going (volume 13 was published earlier this year), and the series is considered to be a quintessential reference by ornithologists from around the world. (I am happy to provide various reviews, etc. if you need to see those too.) The text in question is included in the Introduction section, and reads: "[...] The accepted English names of species are written without accents, hence Junin Flightless Grebe and Chiloe Wigeon, although the toponyms usually maintain the accent, e.g. Lake Junín. All species names of birds start with a capital letter, even in the plural..." (The bolding is mine, for emphasis.) If you require more references, please let me know, and I'll include those as well. Thanks, MeegsC | Talk 17:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you are probably watching the project page, but just in case, here are a small selection of previous discussions: 10-1, 7-1, 7-2, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3). There is also a global committee set up as part of the International Ornithological Congress (http://www.worldbirdnames.org/) which has tried to standardize the English names of birds. (http://www.worldbirdnames.org/principles.html) Jimfbleak (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips, it is on my watchlist. I just commented on the project birds talk page. I'll have to find time to go through the archives....hopefully I can help build a new concensus. TableManners (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborate on Grouses?

Hey. If you are interested, I own a book on the grouse of the world, which includes pretty detailed accounts on the Greater Prairie Chicken and the grouse species listed in your template. If you want to join forces on one of these at some point to get it to GA or FA, just let me know. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am, but it might be awhile. I am going to try to get some pheasant stuff in the pheasant article. But I distract easily (family man). TableManners ^U·T·C 05:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got Madge and McGowan, Pheasants, Partridges and Grouse if that helps. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disamb

I've chopped the list at the pheasant disamb page for the following reasons

None of the other species (ie except Common) is ever going to be described as just "Pheasant"
The disamb page should not repeat the content of the Pheasant page. You wouldn't expect Hummingbird (disambiguation) ( a good ambig page imho) to list all 300 species in that bird family, just the different uses of the word.
Anyone searching for eg Blood Pheasant is going to enter that name - the only real possibility of confusion is between the Common/Ring-necked and the group of species as a whole

If you really think the list should be there, it's not a big deal, but sooner or later some MoS fiend will chop it again. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, nope. That is why I asked you. I think you'd did a good job. TableManners ^U·T·C 12:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie chicken

Mea culpa - just didn't think clearly Jimfbleak (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davken

Yes, thanks for that. At least it wasn't the string of obscenities/page blanking etc I sometimes get! Jimfbleak (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is exactly that, sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. the term has been used on television as well as in a major motion picture. Hence the reason for its inclusion on this site. If people want to search for it, don't you think they'd like a result? this is none of your business anyways and it was deleted without giving me anytime to add the sources. That is a blatant disregard for simple common courtesy. and his response "I've never heard of it" is no justification to delete an article. i couldn't find "i've never heard of it" as a wiki policy for deletion. This isn't any of your business anyways so don't answer other peoples talk pages. don't you have anything better to do on this site? there are plenty of people vandalising articles, spend your time wisely and deal with them if you have nothing better to do. Davken1102 (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've notice that although it has been restored to your user space, and you have been notifed, you have not made any attempt to improve User:Davken1102/sandbox [1]. TableManners ^U·T·C 03:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR

Re: [2], Synthesis and primary sources contradict the text of your edit summary that "...helpful hint: if it has a source, it's not OR..." OR can be done with sources. TableManners ^U·T·C 05:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)The preceeding was copied from Alansohn's talk page by Alansohn (talk · contribs)[reply]

I did some research at WP:OR, which states that "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." which would seem to clearly contradict your position. I fail to see any support for your position. Could it be your own original research? Again, if you have particular issues with content, tag it and I will be happy to add an appropriate source. Alansohn (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on your talk page. TableManners ^U·T·C 06:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Museums in Kentucky

May I point out that the topic of the Creation museum is neither science not technology, but religion -- I would therefore suggest a more accurate categorisation in this template. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I'll work on it tonight. TableManners ^U·T·C 03:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]