Welcome new user
Hello, User:TuxLibNit, I see you've opened an account and begun to make edits to the encyclopaedia. You are most welcome and thank you for the many constructive edits you have made.
I'm Lumos3, one of the numerous editors here. I voluntarily work as a welcomer to newcomers. I'm posting below a standard welcome box with lots of useful links. I hope you get pleasure from editing and making Wikipedia an even better resource for the community.
I myself have come to the conclusion that editing and watching a topic is a great way to learn about it in depth and stay on top of current developments in a field.
Wikipedia encourages new members to jump in and make corrections and contributions to articles. I found the Be bold guideline particularly encouraging when I was getting started. I also found the Wikipedia:Cheatsheet a useful quick reference for editing the source text but our new VisualEditor makes editing much easier (This needs to be turned on in your user preferences under beta features).
If you have any questions about the project don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page here :-User_talk:Lumos3.
Made me look
I saw your edit and wondered about it, and so checked around. They must have been typing that number from memory as they were sorta almost right... When I checked on Amazon for the book I saw Amazon had both the old and newer forms for ISBN listed:
- ISBN-10: 0700716157
- ISBN-13: 978-0700716159
- Thanks for the feedback. My guess is that they only had the ISBN10, got confused by the guidance that ISBN13 is preferred and tried to convert it by hand. I've been working through a lot of pages with ISBN errors and that's a pretty comprehensible error compared to some. My favourite so far is this one. I was quite pleased with myself when I worked out what was wrong.
Hi - thank you for the correction to the ISBN of the book cited in the samuel shaw article. As a new user, I also could not figure out how to add categories. It would be good to add american whistleblowers as a category for this article, so folks can learn more about Shaw. Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- There appears to have been some confusion with Samuel_Shaw_(politician). I think I've sorted that out (edit1 and edit2), which included moving Category:American whistleblowers and Category:Continental Navy officers to Samuel_Shaw_(Naval_Officer). Hopefully its obvious from the diffs how categories work. You add an item to a category by adding a wikilink to that category. By convention, category wikilinks go at the end of the document. You may notice I've also copied across some additional templates (currently commented out) that you may like to fill in and uncomment if you have that information. Hope that helps. Not sure how well talk works with IPs so I'll post something on your talk page too.TuxLibNit (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Minor barnstar|
|It looks like you've been doing loads of little ISBN fixes - a fantastic job which really helps with referencing, a perennial but overlooked task. Your userpage says you are new here - well I hope you are enjoying yourself. To say thanks - here is a barnstar for your good efforts. To quote the template page: "The Minor Barnstar is awarded for making minor edits of the utmost quality. Minor edits are often overlooked, but are essential contributions to Wikipedia." - this sums up your current editing activity perfectly! Keep up the good work. :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 16:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)|
Thanks for coming to me with your concerns. I was not aware that Nelson 2006 was preferred, and perhaps I should've taken that into account when making the edits. I am using Compagno 2005 (Sharks of the World, produced by Princeton Press) as a reference, as that is one of the preferred taxonomy and identification references used on FishBase. It is also referenced in many of the shark articles present on Wikipedia. According to this reference, Echinorhinidae is a family in the order Squaliformes, and not its own separate order. According to the paper "Dental structure of the Giant lantern shark Etmopterus baxteri (Chondrichthyes: Squaliformes) and its taxonomic implications", Straube et al 2007, the only major reason given for the possible separation of Echinorhinidae from Squaliformes at large is based on unclear differences in tooth morphology. If the creation of a separate order for Echinorhinidae is given more clear reasons, than I would be happy to see my edits reversed. I agree that it's important to keep taxonomy consistent, so it'll be nice to see this issue resolved. I'll also be removing the references to Echinorhiniformes that you mentioned, as I was not aware of them.
Dang, I didn't realize I'd done that. I'm usually pretty good with table syntax. Thanks for fixing it. :) I definitely agree that the possible edits you mentioned would be a good idea. I'll add a blurb about why the reader gets redirected to Echinorhinidae when searching for Echinorhiniformes. I'll also try to fix the source issue you mentioned. Nightlight6 (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)Nightlight6Nightlight6 (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I replaced the invalid ISBNs with valid OCLCs which is used by Harvard and by worldcat. So, there is no reason to provide the invalid ISBNs which do not have any value outside worldcat. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)