User talk:Richard001/Archive 2

Ear image deletion

Hi there, re your comment at Human vestigiality, the image doesn't seem to have been deleted and it doesn't look like it will [(discussion)]. Can I replace it in the article for now? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the it had been deleted and the discussion closed, but now it appears to have reopened... Richard001 (talk) 06:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Richard - thanks for pointing out the link to "conservapedia" - If I remember correctly, I just tossed a link in there to indicate that I wasn't spouting off about something that can't be found elsewhere... Not to present something as fact. I'll find a different source if you can remind me where I linked it. I know the conservapedia site is less than credible. I'm just beginning to learn how this all works... Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FloridaJarrett (talk • contribs) 10:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Richard, I have been uploading all my images not in Commons (didn't know this was wrong), thank you for the advice.

ZoofanNZ (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Have the book in hands...

Hi Richard, I checked out The Power of Movement in Plants from the library to make a few scans of my own. I have neither the time nor ambition to scan all 196 figures or even all 592 pages, but while I have the book, are there any particular pages/images that I should scan for future use? - tameeria (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I haven't actually even looked at that one Tameeria. I just stopped by that article to slap a banner on it and give it a rating, so I can't really offer any advice. Richard001 (talk) 06:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I'll ask that question on Wikiproject Plants then to see if anyone there would want to use specific figures from it. - tameeria (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops

Thanks for telling me, didn't realize. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I see

Thanks for the insight. I've had a time trying to figure out the correct etiquette for everything. Re: Isthmus, I thought the same thing, but that was the article's first example of a geological barrier. Also, upwellings are an example of a geological barrier, though not solid, it still acts as a virtual barrier. Therefore, I feel it might be better to say "geological barriers such as upwellings" instead of and.

I welcome your thoughts. -JasonSpradlin82 (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Champions Of The Magnificent City.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Champions Of The Magnificent City.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice

Go on, remove those pop culture sections! I hate those things XD delldot on a public computer talk 10:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AUK

This is an invitation to WikiProject Auckland, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's articles on Auckland. Please feel free to join us.

Taifarious1 22:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Teaching of evolution in Pakistan

I wouldn't agree with the claim of evolutionism not being taught in Pakistan HE. Although, Creationism is taught as part of the Religious education, Evolutionism remains intrinsic (though not very distinct) part of scientific knowledge in universities (one of the reasons why we won't find many sources). At intellectual level, there have been attempts in the past to link the two by the mathematician Mashriqi and others. In recent times, the likes of Pervez Hoodbhoy have been struggling to bring about such dialogues by translating prominent books into Urdu through NGOs. The difference from Turkey is that the situation has not been made much public, as yet!--IslesCape^Talk 19:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, neither of the two (creationism and evolutionism) are taught 'exclusively' as subjects at any level of education. Religious education is available to all faiths. I would say Mashriqi was more on lines of theistics, but I'd have to go through the reference cited on his article. --IslesCape^Talk 19:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Life of Mammals

Thanks for your message. I didn't originally add the chimp photo to The Life of Mammals article, but I'm sure the reason for deletion was that no rationale was given. One small screenshot per article would be okay as long as a rationale is given in each case and it definitely illustrates the accompanying text. As regards critical reception, etc., I agree that more could be added but citations are sometimes hard to come by. Chris 42 (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

RE:

Thank you for your concerns. I will keep an eye out in the future :) CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Subarticles

Discussions with you (and others) at Template:SubArticle have been productive and enjoyable. I'm busy for a few days, but please ping me if you don't get a response after that! I'd be glad to continue to help. Geometry guy 23:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dennett

I replied to your post on my talk page.D-rew (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

References

In re: citing wikipedia as ref.. Ah, ok. This I did not know. Thanks for pointing that out. Agreed, the Monarch article is terrible but I have not the time nor resources to take it on.Nickrz (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

'Life' trilogy

The first three were a trilogy and then the others followed. I'll have a delve into Attenborough's autobiography when I get a bit more time and see what I can find. :-) Chris 42 (talk) 13:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. While Attenborough does not refer to the first three specifically as a trilogy, he does state (when discussing The Private Life of Plants), "The time had come for me to change tack. I had made three major series covering three main aspects of animal history. [...] But the fundamental basis of animal life on this planet had been largely ignored." The trilogy, out of necessity, does give an overarching view of the animal and plant kingdoms, and The Living Planet in particular deals with environments and their inhabitants, including plant life. So the article introductions as they stand are not incorrect: Plants is a specialised survey — it's just that Attenborough dealt with all their different groups in one series instead of the separate ones devoted to the birds, mammals and reptiles, etc. Also, the reference to the trilogy in the David Attenborough article was there long before I started expanding the 'Life' articles and the text has remained unchanged, so nobody seems to disagree with it. In addition, it's referred to as a trilogy here, here and here. Chris 42 (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Velvet worm

Hi Richard, if you're still interested I've now finished my translation of this article from the German FA - sorry it took so long! Enjoy, --YFB ¿ 19:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your message about the page in question. I will keep an eye on that page and make sure to fix it better in the future. Bobo. 15:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Common mistakes

Hi, I've learned a few things from your "common mistakes" section. Thanks. There is one thing I keep correcting that you may want to add to your list (as said in Wikipedia:Tree_of_life#Article_titles):

• Names of genera are always italicized and capitalized— Homo, Rosa, Saccharomyces.
• Species epithets are always italicized and preceded by the name of the genus or an abbreviation of it— Homo sapiens or H. sapiens, but never plain sapiens, since such identifiers need not be unique. They are never capitalized.
• Names of higher taxa are capitalized but not italicized— Hominidae, Mammalia, Animalia.

Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely a common mistake on biology pages, though I'd prefer to keep the list to more general mistakes. Richard001 (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

{{Request edit}} versus {{Editprotected}}

Hi Richard. Though the concepts are similar, I believe that {{Request edit}} was created at the suggestion of User:Jeffrey.Kleykamp in September 2007 specifically to address conflicts of interest. Are you thinking of a broader concept than the one Kleykamp proposed? I know that the name of {{Editprotected}} sounds similar. Since Kleykamp's idea appears to be COI-specific, shouldn't WIkipedia:Requested edits, if it is needed as a redirect at all, point to a COI-related page? I realize this is not an earthshaking issue; I was just searching around for documentation and I came across that redirect. EdJohnston (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I think a disambiguation would still be better than redirecting to a COI page. I created both redirects having typed in 'Wikipedia:Edit requests' hoping to find some guidance on requesting edits to protected pages, and got redirected there from Wikipedia:Edit Requests. Looking closer at the description of AN it doesn't seem that placing requests there is the thing to do at all, so it should probably point to the above two templates, perhaps as a disambiguation. Richard001 (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Free will

Hi Richard, When you get a chance, can you look at the additions to the talk page by LoveMonkey? I've already had a revert war with him on the talk page, and I've decide that, as long as it's on the talk page, I'm not going to worry about it, but if you have any thoughts on this, they would be appreciated. Either he's way off the mark, or so brilliant it's beyond me. Edhubbard

I'd go with the former; LoveMonkey's user page doesn't seem to indicate the possession of a full deck of cards... Seems to be flooding the talk page with edits too. Richard001 (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Richard, if you get a chance, I've realized that I am the only one of the old group of editors that brought this article up to FA status that is still active (see the talk page header for all of my departed co-editors). It's impossible to deal with LoveMonkey on my own, so I sort of abandoned the field of combat for a while. Now, it seems like it might be worth trying to really take on the issues you've raised, along with LoveMonkey's POV edits. Can you watch this page for the next week or so, and add your thoughts as I try to work with others to keep it as an FA article? I'm also going to alert some of the FA/FAR editors that I know, like SandyGeorgia. Edhubbard (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning vandals

Thanks for your input. Generally the people I've been advising haven't been handing out any warnings at all. I'll suggest that template to them in the future. xenocidic (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Would you like to have rollback? It's more efficient for some anti-vandalism purposes than tools such as Twinkle.-gadfium 07:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it can't hurt. I'll give it a try. Richard001 (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You've got it.-gadfium 08:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you coming from WP:VPPROP? Don't you think rollback would be better if it let you roll back more than one edit? I don't know why they haven't modified Twinkle to do the same thing but better. Rollback seems to be just a faster version of undo that only works for the most recent edit (not that undo works that often when it's an older edit you're trying to undo...) People can obviously make things worse by 'rolling back' good edits with bad ones, but you have to assume people have some idea what they're doing (and that others will correct them if they go wrong, though you'd be mistaken in the latter assumption 90% of the time). Of course, I doubt any of these suggestions or any others relating to improving our anti-vandal capabilities will ever be adopted, but I've got to at least look like I'm trying (kind of like voting in the US elections). Richard001 (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have seen that discussion, but I haven't formed an opinion on it. Rollback works with any number of edits, so long as they're all by the same user with no other edits intervening. It would be by far my most-used admin tool, and I consider my use of it conservative as I often use manual rollback so I can give a more useful edit summary. The time I find rollback essential is if I have someone who has made bad edits to a large number of articles, and few of those articles have been edited since. Most commonly, this is because they've added a spam link. After spot checking a few articles, I can just middle-click the rollback link on each of their entire range of contributions, and undo everything in a few seconds.-gadfium 08:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins FA

Hello Richard001. I have nominated the article Richard Dawkins for the FA status. Can you make some contributions for the article? Your help will be appreciated. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"some" green algae?

Can you clarify what you meant when you added the word some? As defined on plant and green algae, the plants include all the green algae. I'm not sure whether you are defining plant differently, green alga differently, or what. Kingdon (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right that green algae was kind of confusing; I've tried to fix it (per the reference I just added, it would be overreaching to say "all" people put green algae in Plantae, but it seems to be the general trend these days). As for rewriting the plant lede more generally, I'm much better at fact-checking and so on (I tend to agonize over wording, even when just writing a few sentences). But if you want to try writing something, I could review it (and other people at WT:PLANTS could probably do so even more knowledgeably than I). Kingdon (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Reverting Vandals

Ah, sorry about that. I misread the version history and thought he just added in line breaks, not realizing he broke the Etymology header. -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Animals

Might I suggest using for the WP Animals banner? I replied on the above talk page, but I don't think the image currently being used works particularly well. Justin ^chat 16:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got nothing against multiple animals in one image, but at that size I think it's too small to start chopping it up into four. The 30px version for |small=yes (is that the code?) is basically unrecognizable. I think an invertebrate from one of the taxa not covered by another project is the best option. Alternatively we might have a scene with several taxa in it, e.g. a benthic scene with fish, corals, sponges etc. Richard001 (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

About handicap principle

Could you please explain your inclusion of the Potlatch and Penis links in the see also section ? I am failing to comprehend how they relate to the subject at hand. --Mad Tinman _{T C} 19:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The Potlatch effect is briefly described in The God Delusion, where chiefs of rival groups wage wars of generosity by hosting great feasts, often bankrupting themselves in the process. The penis, specifically its non-erect normal state, was offered by Dawkins in The Selfish Gene as an example of a possible case of the handicap principle in human biology. Richard001 (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless the articles clearly relate to the handicap principle, then there seems little value in sending readers to them. The potlatch article does appear relevant, but is already linked to earlier in the article so doesn't need to appear in the See also section. The penis article (later replaced by erection) doesn't discuss the principle and therefore doesn't seem relevant. I've removed both links. You could certainly link to penis or erection from within a part of the text explaining the context.-gadfium 18:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Book title redirects

I answered your question from January in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Books#Book title redirects. I hope this helps. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Assessments

You're quite right about the arthropod article. Not sure what I was thinking there, definitely not an A-Class. Pity though, it could be easily. IronChris | (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Cult of the Amateur

Why do you insist that a redirect should be deleted? If the book is notable, then create the stub for it. In the absence of that, a redirect makes sense for those who search for the (notable) book and get to read about its author in the meantime. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

genetics project

Hello Richard, I see you are keen on starting a genetics project, have you seen WP:MEDGENP? Currently ticking along but I have suggested expanding the project on it's talk page recently since it has a few contributors, but needs more to be fully active. After looking at all the various definitions of genetics / (human/ medical/ standard) medical genetics does cover a lot of the material anyway, so seems a good place to work from towards a full genetics project... please feel free to add any thoughts to he project's talk page ... oh and keep up the good work :) Leevanjackson (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I had forgotten about the medical genetics project, actually. A genetics project would be a great bridge between medical genetics and general biology. Richard001 (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus sought for spinout articles

Your contributions are sought at WT:FICT#Guidelines and consensus, to try to determine whether the inclusion of spinout articles without real-world coverage has consensus support. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Italics

Thanks for the reminder, Richard. I'm always learning! AC+79 3888 (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hydrostatic Skeleton

Hi Richard, since you put it that way, its virtually impossible to disagree. As you are familiar with the working habits of undergrads, time is always in short supply. Nonetheless I will attempt to revise the input on that topic at a later time as advised. Also the addition to the Cladophora article was in my own words. I was looking through article while formulating study notes and lecture summaries and paraphrased an interesting bit of information in one of my prac manuals. Unfortunately I couldnt find the reference and just moved on. Not too sure if its the work of one of my lecturers or what but the words are mine. Speaking of which, a majority of the botany articles could use vast improvement in terms of subject material. Anyway i digress, thanks for the tip! (Edebraux (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

Re: Uploaded Images

err ... thanks for your (rather confusing) message Richard (001). I'm not sure if it was pitched as a general castigation of my contributions, or a back-handed compliment thereof, or even somewhere in between. Anyway, I'm rather busy IRL and don't have too much time to shift those images to Commons right now, but feel free to do so yourself. After all, this is a wiki, and if you perceive a problem, then you're welcome to fix it. --Cactus.man ✍ 23:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Cut & paste

Hi Richard,

As you know, I am expanding the Infanticide article. I will continue to expand it according to my sources. There is a kilobytes limit in Wikipedia however. There's also that rule: to avoid content fork. Since there's already a hatnote in the Infanticide article referring to the Animal infanticide article, I'd like to cut and paste the whole section of animal infanticide into that article. But you are more familiar with the subject of infanticide among animals than me. Would you like to do the cutting & pasting? I still plan to add about 50 more kilobytes of info in the Infanticide article. Therefore sooner or later, per WP policies, any editor will do the splitting anyway.

Regards,

Cesar Tort 17:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Need some help with my Wiki

Hello,

I'm totally lost! I have to find out how to create a wiki in a way that only certain users can access and/or edit an article. I have been trying to figure this out for over 3 weeks. I really would appreciate your help. Can you help me please?

Thank you.

Rantrom 01:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no experience with creating wikis. You may want to ask elsewhere, such as Wikipedia:Help desk. That's probably not the best place either, but they should be able to tell you where to go if nothing else. Richard001 (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The Theory of Island Biogeography

The reason I reverted to the redirect to Island biogeography was because it had been that way with no comment since July 2006. You are correct that there is no speedy criteria that fit; that's why I removed the speedy tag. ... discospinster _talk 15:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

reply re. Price of petroleum/to do

What I meant was that the article should discuss the link between the price of petroluem and the effect on inflation as well the link between stagflation rather than just have a link in the see also section or captions. I will get around to it after I find some references. Sorry for the not being clearer, does that make sense? - Shiftchange (talk) 07:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Genetics proposal

FYI, people are discussing the idea of a Wikiproject Genetics here: WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Genetics. It'd be great to hear you thoughts on the points brought up. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 22:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Potential error in Batesian mimicry section

Check the Batesian mimicry discussion page for explanation. — [Unsigned comment added by 128.189.229.166 (talk • contribs) on 01:07, 21 April 2008.]

Kingfisher

Please see page, clarification required.Andycjp (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Free will

I found a malformed, incomplete FAR at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Free will‎ when checking the category. If you intend to submit this to WP:FAR, please read all of the instructions at the top of the WP:FAR page and complete the process correctly, including notifications. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I must have thought I had finished and got distracted. I did read the instructions, just didn't follow through with all of them. I've notified the main contributor, and anyone else interested should be watching the page and have noted my many past comments about this. I've also notified the philosophy and religion projects, though the original nominator is from so long ago it isn't even recorded on the template. Richard001 (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Dysgenics

I notice that you've kept an eye on this article, and I think it really needs your help. It's all the same to me whether you accept or reject the dysgenic hypothesis; my impression is that most of the editors just aren't familiar with what's in the scientific literature where such familiarity is badly needed. Harkenbane (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't actually been watching this article at all; I've just dropped by every now and then. I also know too little about the subject to help, though I hope to read a book or two in the eugenics area some time. Richard001 (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit to heterotroph

You're right, Richard. Thanks a lot!! Best regards from Mexico City!--correogsk (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Genetics

I've created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics page, please join if you're still interested! At the moment it's pretty bare looking, but I figured everyone could chip in with things to add to the page. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 18:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Climate

Perhaps I was too short regarding the lead of the article, which has traditionally been my problem in trying to upgrade an article to GA class. I have included additional information, and it is now 2 paragraphs. I didn't want to go into details explaining every climate type in the lead, because I was afraid the lead would become too long. It's now 2 paragraphs. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete Template:Book cover?

You don't seem to provide any rationale. The redirect seemed useful (I reached this myself and was going to (re)create it before I saw the deletion history note. What other use could a template for a book cover have? Free covers wouldn't need such a template. Richard001 (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit that I should have left a better deletion summary. I deleted the redirect because it was unused and doesn't start with the required "Non-free" prefix, see Wikipedia:Non-free content/templates. Book covers that are about 100 years old or so are actually in the public domain, so a public domain template should be used instead. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Fishproject

Hi Richard. Per your 12 March 2008 request, I added assessment parameters to Template:Fishproject. Best. GregManninLB (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(copied from here) Hi Richard. I fixed the importance category and this edit fixed the additional brackets problem. I had requested Happy-melon's assistance with the additional brackets problem. He posted an alternate code. I don't belong to the Fishes project, so please feel free to decide how you want to proceed with the project banner code. As for top importance, I gave ocean sunfish a top importance only because it was an FA article. Please feel free to revise any importance or quality rating as you see fit. Best. GregManninLB (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Utilitarianism, average and total welfare

Richard, I am aware that I push the envelope. However, I strive to do so in a respectful way.

On population size, by saying that the ‘answer’ is somewhere in the middle, I feel I am merely pointing out the obvious, am setting the stage so to speak, so that someone else might make progress.

On the ‘dilemma-fication’ of ethics, I don’t feel I did that part as well, but it’s the same goal: setting the stage so that someone else might make progress.

Since Parfit published Reasons and Persons in 1984, has there been any progress regarding average vs. total welfare? At all?

And I ask you to please reread your post to me. In part, in part, you spoke to me as if I were a child or social inferior.

And I would suggest a pause. When I post something that in your judgment detracts from the article, please pause and see if anyone else deletes it. If you find that you’re the only person deleting my postings (which is merely one possible future situation) that would probably not be a real constructive situation. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Rating

I assessed it that way becuse I thought it met the overall standard at the time. Articles and standards change. If that has happened: change the rating. If you just disagree: change it. If you can't come to me with something constructive: don't bother. Be positive! Inge (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the GA standards didn't require the lead to meet the lead section guidelines at the time you assessed. That's the problem with A-class: it's presented as being superior to GA class on the scale (some say the GA/FA thing is different from other ratings, but if that was the case why can we give something a rating of GA or FA without any other?), yet there are no clear 'A-class' criteria. Surely if a GA can be 'moved up' to an A-class, the A-class rating should be restricted to articles that are better than GAs. I have changed the rating to a B, but I don't think it's enough just to change the rating without telling the rater why I don't think it met the standard. If I don't do this, people will keep giving out ratings that are too high. Perhaps I could try to sound more positive, but I would hope that pointing this problem out to you is in some way constructive. Richard001 (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

How to archive

Hi, I've taken your advice and done the first archive of my talkpage. Thanks for suggesting it. I read the how-to page, but there's something I don't understand. The new page has a redlink at the top, suggesting that I have no user page, but of course I do. Do you know how I can fix that? BrainyBabe (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Duchenne smile

I don't understand. Rectify what situation? Hyacinth (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you have pointed to no specific problem my advice is to look up Duchenne smile where one would normally look up such subjects as parts of the body and emotions. Even if I had provided references in the article you would have to verify the information for yourself. How do you know I didn't make what stuff up?

When requesting references it is useful to specify which information you feel needs to be cited. One may argue that this is your responsibility. You may do this directly in the article through placing the {{fact}} template after the information in question. If you really feel the entire article is questionable you may tag it with {{unreferenced}} at the top of the article, as well as contacting the person who created the article.

However, you failed to notice in the article history that I did not create the article content. What I created was a redirect to Smile, which I have not edited. Hyacinth (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, you think articles should be referenced. You seem unable to choose between whether its your opinion or my obligation. My opinion is that people should be polite and informed. Have you noticed if I have created any articles with references? (or you could dig into the history of Wikipedia:Citing sources, I'd suggest looking at the talk page history showing 500 edits at a time) On the other hand, I think that in 1/2 the time that you have spent discussing this issue with me you could have verified for yourself that the term "Duchenne smile" or "play smile" is used in two different resources outside of Wikipedia. For example:

• Ekman, P., Davidson, R.J., & Friesen, W.V. (1990). The Duchenne smile: Emotional expression and brain psysiology II. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 342-353. Cited in: Russell and Fernandez-Dols, eds. (1997).
• Russell and Fernandez-Dols, eds. (1997). The Psychology of Facial Expression. Cambridge. ISBN 0521587964.

As I attempted to point out earlier: you still don't know I didn't just make it all up and would have to verify any information you questioned for yourself anyway. One could argue that is one's intellectual responsibility. Perhaps it is one's actual responsibility as a subsequent editor according to Wikipedia:Citing sources. Why don't you tell me? Hyacinth (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't just get the wrong person, you got the wrong attitude. I would probably be less upset if you where able to prove this "responsibility" you assert. Wikipedia:Citing sources: "Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is policy, says that attribution is required for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." Not for ALL material. Hyacinth (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

hope

I don't want to get in a debate with you but I just need to say I hope that you will open your eyes one day and see that God is real. Then you can be forgiven of your sins and will be accepted into the holy land. That sounded so corny. But I must tell because I care about everyone including you even though I don't know you but I must tell you that God is real. You can believe me or not. I'm not going to try and change your mind. You said you're a Strong Atheists so I probably couldn't even if I tried. I just wanted you to know that because I don't want another one (you) to burn.--WillC (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay I don't know how to e-mail you from here. I usually just edit wrestling pages so I don't really need to know how. What is your e-mail address? Mine is on my users page.--WillC (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

YouTube

I will try to add some article summaries during the next few days. If you have some spare time, please feel free to have a go yourself. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not really my area. Thanks for the offer though. Richard001 (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia - The Missing Manual

As you know, WP:COI strongly discourages editors with a personal interest in a topic from editing that topic. So I haven't added anything to the article, and don't plan to, nor to take a position on notability. As for reviews, you'll find a bunch at www.gopedia.org; which (if any) any rise to the level of WP:RS I'll leave up to you and others to decide. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Red Rain in Kerala

Some while ago you wrote on the talk page that you came away "not really having any conclusive idea what the rain was". The page is now under review as a Featured Article.

A friend had introduced me to the red rain in late 2005 - he's a 'committed' believer in panspermia. After reading Louis & Kumar's 3 papers, the CESS paper and a whole load of articles I came to the conclusion that the cause was incomplete incineration of chemical waste at the Eloor industrial zone.

A paragraph that I'd added to the Wikipedia's Red Rain 'Conventional Theories' section was removed, as 'original research', though it remains in the schools version, http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/r/Red_rain_in_Kerala.htm, even after I'd added a reference to Jack Szostak's work on lipids and montmorillonite clay (which plausibly explains Louis & Kumar's observation of 'reproduction'). I thought I'd trodden the line quite carefully.

"More plausibly, the suggestion has been made that the red raindust was the result of incomplete incineration of chemical waste at the Eloor industrial zone, the particles being formed from microparticles of fly-ash or clay which coalesced around an aerosol of partly burnt organics as the incinerator plume cooled. The chemical composition of the raindust matches that of burnt organics plus clay; the fallout pattern matches with the prevailing winds; and various organic chemicals will form cellular structures which replicate in the presence of clay."

I hope that there isn't an effort underway either to re-launch, yet again, the 'spores from space' story or to keep the lid on the pollution problem by asserting the CESS research, and hope that you might take a look at the article again.

You can reference me through letters I wrote, http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=2520 and http://www.downtoearth.org.in/new_letter.asp?currentpage=3&foldername=20061031

The paper I started to write stalled, or rather I stalled. But please let me know if you would further details. I would be interested in your comments. Sadly, incomplete incineration still rings true and the other hypotheses haven't got any better. Davy p (talk) 04:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

{{Archiveme}}

Your request has been performed. Please not that the Category created my be deleted within four days unless populated. Adam McCormick (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Stotting

I do understand the handicap principle. And if stotting is an example of an antipredator adaptation, then it makes no sense to assert earlier in the paragraph that it "increases the risk of being caught and killed by the predator" when just a few sentences later, in the cited example, stotting is shown to reduce the risk to gazelles of being caught and killed by a cheetah. So stotting would seem, intuitively, to increase the risk, but if it's an antipredator adaptation as the article suggests, then it decreases the risk. My edit is completely consistent with the succeeding sentence, which calls stotting an "apparently maladaptive behavior". --Lazar Taxon (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but does increase the risk of being caught in a way (it increases the risk of being caught, but the predator treats it as a signal of unprofitability, so overall it decreases the risk). The new wording I have used should remove any possible ambiguity. Richard001 (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this wording is good. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hey Richard,

You've got quite an impressive personal page. I share similar beliefs and try to add as much as i can contribute towards betterment of Wikipedia. BTW i created this article on Tux Typing which is quite useful for kids and is open source in nature, just like Tux Paint.

I reckon it deserves to have its page. And i've tried enough to add as much information. If i can i'll do improve it as and when i see something. Hope you understand. Kudos to your work, Cheers! User:Randhirreddy 06:11, 29 May 2008

{{Merging}}

I have made the change you requested and added some additional documentation. Please let us know if there's anything else I can do. Adam McCormick (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit history vandalism

I have revived an erlier discussion you participated in at WT:VAN. Please reply there if you care. — AjaxSmack 01:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Vandalism

I guess it's a valid concern, but it's not worth my time to fix it. If queries have been ignored until now, there's no reason to expect someone to answer them. Yechiel (Shalom) 16:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that page really needs a maintainer... Richard001 (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

{{mammal}}

I think your template is fixed now. Please can you check it over and pop over to WP:RT and mark it as resolved if you're happy. As a note, needs-taxobox and needs-audio should also work now too. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 01:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ratopolis

Thank you for helping on The Gene Bomb article. a few months ago I tried to start an article for the movie Ratopolis and did not get very far on making the article stick. Could you take a look and make a few suggestions http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Septagram/Ratopolis Septagram (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Dysgenics

Noticed your edit at Dysgenics. Actually, it might solve some problems to go ahead and create an article on the book (problems of how to mention it here on WP without throwing an article out of balance). It's certainly notable enough--as one can see from the many book reviews and the awareness of many editors that the book exists. If you create the article, I'll try to back you up through the inevitable nomination for deletion (not that my input will count for much). --Anthon.Eff (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I should have mentioned: please don't be surprised if my contribution to the article is to say something mean about the book. That I favor the article doesn't necessarily mean that I favor the book.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm creating it at the moment actually. I doubt it will be nominated for deletion, and it meets notability requirements easily enough. Richard001 (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Websites - Proposal

I have made an important proposal for the project here .We are looking forward for your comments and suggestions. You are receiving this note since you have made a similar suggestion earlier -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 05:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Breaking The Spell.jpg

I've restored the image. Sorry for the delay; I totally missed your message. Maxim_(talk) 12:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Photographing Richard Lynn

Hi, yes, I would be happy to photograph Richard Lynn (and presumably to release the image into the public domain?) I live in the Hotwells area, within very easy reach of the city centre and Clifton areas, and have my own transport if necessary. Replies on my talk page are fine, but if you want to dive straight into email, you can find a contact link for me at the bottom of all pages of my personal site. gothick (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! You'll now find a few Creative-Commons licensed photographs of Richard Lynn among my contributions on the Commons. I've put them in a few basic categories, there, too. Common consensus among the creative types here is that Prof-Richard-Lynn-7651.jpg is fundamentally the best portrait, although that one's a black and white treatment due to some unfortunate colour clashes (i.e. pink scientist, pink wallpaper!) gothick (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Henry Huxley

If you can spare time, please give your opinion on the THH talk page!

A user has deleted the 'Quotes' section near the end of Thomas Henry Huxley, and I would like some opinions on this. The content is listed on the Talk:Thomas Henry Huxley page (section 18).

Obviously, such a section is unusual, but there are good reasons for having it in the case of THH. It improves the biography by making it easier to understand the man: this would not be true of most scientists, but it is true of Huxley. I don't think it contravenes the 'Wikipedia is not a directory' policy, and if it did I would argue that policy should be a guide, not an absolute. Options, it seems to me, are:

1. section deleted, as now is

2. section reinstated, as was

3. section shortened and reinstated

4. create a linked page 'Huxleyana' to put it in, flagged on the main page

5. put it in Wikiquote (I am against this, both on grounds of remoteness (being on a different system, and little used, and on grounds that Wikiquote has developed into s place for longer excerpts taken from web sources)

6. Or, are we into a more comprehensive reorg with a view to shortening the article?

Same user changed character of the Biographies section. This is a less significant change.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dysgenics.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dysgenics.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:The Dawkins Delusion.jpg

Restored. Maxim_(talk) 15:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations

I have nominated Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, an article you created, for deletion. I have explained why at the discussion page. Your opinions on the matter are welcome there, and you are also welcome to edit the article to address any concerns. Thank you for your time. Elonka 04:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Mimicry in carnivorous plants

This article might be of interest: Joel, D.M. 1989. "Mimicry in carnivorous pitcher plants — fact or legend?" (PDF). Carnivorous Plant Newsletter 18(1): 12–14. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarke and Bingle

Hi Richard. IF you are experienced with working with commons and flickr, can you investigate the flickr user who took photos of Clarke and Lara Bingle because from the dates he put on the pic, I'm wondering whether he just pulled it off some website and stucka random date on it. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Diagrams

Hi Richard, I am going through Category:Wikipedia requested diagram images and I am noticing your edits all over the place, so I guess you have an interest in diagrams, too. I was wondering if you are aware of the w:Philip Greenspun illustration project?

After looking at your Commons userpage, I guess you are not an illustrator yourself -- might you be interested in the organisational side of PGIP? If you think you might be, please drop me a line (either wiki or email). thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I am not too sure if the category needs splitting. Once it gets a proper clean-up I think it will be a lot smaller. Lots of the requests I've looked at (I'm more or less going through them alphabetically) have no detail about what kind of diagram they want, so it would be very hard for an illustrator to fulfill anyway. Lots of them seem very old, some exist on articles that have since had images added; some should be reqphoto not reqdiagram...some I just think are suspect, like an article that has a paragraph probably needs more expansion rather than a diagram.

There are dozens of diagram requests on articles of buildings, especially towers. I made a comment about that here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Skyscrapers#What_kind_of_diagrams_in_tower_articles? because I'm not sure what kind of diagram a tower should have, my guess is it should have a photo not a diagram. Anyway if there is some reason buildings should have diagrams rather than photos, making those a separate subcategory would be a good start to cleaning it up. --pfctdayelise (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Re towers, it occurs to me now that they may want height-comparison graphics like this. I looked at a few of the tower requests to see who was making them, and it was mostly anons. But I stopped looking. I think if we just separate them, someone who cares about buildings can deal with them.

Charts/graphs I feel are far easier to create than other types of diagrams. Programs even can do it automatically if you feed in the data. So it makes sense I think to separate those requests and also to exclude them from PGIP - they are far easier to fulfil.

I don't really care if they go into a subcat or a sibling cat. May as well be a sibling I think. Category:Chemistry pages needing pictures is a sibling cat for example.

Well kind of sibling... it looks like this:

 _____ Wikipedia requested images ______
 |                                    \
 |                                     \
Wikipedia requested diagram images     Articles needing images
                                        |
                                       Chemistry pages needing pictures

The distinction between "Wikipedia requested images" and "Articles needing images" is not a strong one to me. --pfctdayelise (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I moved 88 now to Category:Wikipedia requested building diagrams (via Template:Building diagram needed), so not quite as many as I thought, but still a sizeable number. I think by checking existing resources and removing old/nonsensical tags, and maybe creating a chart category, we can get it to less than 400 (then only 2 pages), which may be OK. --pfctdayelise (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge Tag

Yeah sorry about that. I guess I just wanted to raise the issue but didnt have any strong feelings one way or the other. Montco (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Predator satiation

What kind of diagram were you imagining here? --pfctdayelise (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, Talk:Pseudogene? --pfctdayelise (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And also Talk:Protostome. How can you have a diagram for a whole class of creatures? --pfctdayelise (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added descriptions to each page. Richard001 (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons

Hi Richard, I usually upload to commons now, trouble with old uploads is that I don't keep any record or watchlist them, so it's pot luck if I find them. Many are effectively obsolete now, with better images available, so some probably would be better deleted. jimfbleak (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've retagged the Skua

Survey request

Hi, Richard001 I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't contributed very much to medical articles, but I'd be happy to complete a survey anyway. Richard001 (talk) 08:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Kim Sterelny

Ghah, I just missed him. He spends Jan to July in Vic so he won't be back till December. I'll try then. As for the photos, I haven't uploaded anything here in years. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sea gull sandy point.JPG

Thanks for your interest. It is in Sandypoint State Park, Md, USA. Docku^Hi 10:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion taken. By the way, i still could not figure out what species of sea gull it belongs to? If you are a bird person..... Docku^Hi 10:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

would like to follow it. Is it on the project discussion page. Docku^Hi 10:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds August newsletter

The August 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk 01:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Wilhelm Weinberg.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wilhelm Weinberg.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Animal locomotion

Hi Richard, you posted a request for a diagram for this article. I selected it as part of PGIP -- see here. It's not clear for the illustrator what diagram is required. Do you have access to the diagram you mentioned in Biology? If so, it would be very useful if you were able to post a copy of it somewhere (eg. photobucket...) for an illustrator to use as a reference. thanks --pfctdayelise (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't find one on the web. Maybe I'll make a scan of it and upload it somewhere. Richard001 (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be very appreciative if you could. Or, if you have a digital camera, it might be easier to just take a photo of that page. --pfctdayelise (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've found a copy of it from a lecture online, here's a copy of it I uploaded: http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/1796/locomotionenergeticsvsmjr4.jpg. This image is actually pretty straightforward. Would it really be suitable for the project? It's basically just a graph with three different lines on it, I doubt anyone would expect to be paid much to make a copy of it. Richard001 (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, not really. I guess one of my next tasks is separating chart/graph requests from "real" diagram requests. :/ --pfctdayelise (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

red-bill

Well, I am not 100% certain, but the two species are pretty much split based on geography, which means if it was seen in Cantebury as the name suggests makes it a Red-bill. But I am not even sure how certain how certain the split is. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The gulls in question look more like the Laughing Gull, notice how the black head goes all the way around the neck instead of ending up the head at the back. Problem is, the gulls have all black heads (summer plumage) and completely black bills (as opposed to red). Without a locality I can't assume it is somewhere I have a book for here. If I have time I'll check hbw today at the library. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Tern

I've added a detailed summary to the Tern image jimfbleak (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Hi. :) I'm working the copyright problems board and came upon Image:Imran Khan Ni Nachleh 2007.jpg, which you tagged for violation on August 10th. I just wanted to ask you, when you tag an image or article for a copyright problem, to please notify the creator or uploader. There is a handy little notice you can use on the template itself which makes this easy to do. This is important to make sure that all contributors understand our copyright policies. Thanks for pointing out the problem with this image. :) I've notified the uploader and will process it accordingly if verification of release is not forthcoming. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have [User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Copyright_with_images_-_notifying_the_uploader replied]. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!

You probably know all of this already, but welcome anyway! : )

Hi, and welcome to the Birds WikiProject! As you've probably guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of bird-related topics.

A few features that you may find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, outreach, and other tasks.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention.
• Read our current newsletter, and sign up for (or opt out) of future issues.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any experienced member of the project; we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! MeegsC | Talk 08:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Evolution of Morality

Hello Richard,

I noticed you had created the article Evolution of morality as a redirect to Evolutionary ethics. I was doing some research online and though the two topics are related, I felt there was a some distinction in the subject matter. So I have added some content to evolution of morality.

Regards Frowanda (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the redirect was only really a temporary thing. Richard001 (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Few months ago, but take a minutes visit that link and tell me what did you do?

Discussion about redlinks problem <-- That was few months ago. Now I guess you done it (even you've forgot it completely), but take a minutes visit that link and tell me what did you do for fix that since March 2008 (to nowaday, if something wrong). Thanks. nnq2603 Talk 02:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't do anything, except forget about it. Richard001 (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, that's same answers I got from my language edition sysops :D. Nnq2603 (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are no red links anymore so the issue I raised is no longer a problem (though I'm still not sure that all the articles we do have would meet the website notability criteria). Richard001 (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Theorum"

Please. Spelling shouldn't be so.....creative. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh noes, another misspeling... Richard001 (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

T. W. Wood

Hi, just a heads up that I've put a couple of links on my talk page that suggest Darwin had drawings done by a Thomas Wood from Hampstead Road, NW [London, presumably], so that seems more likely than the American chap. . . dave souza, talk20:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Applications

I'm in two minds about that now, on one hand the genetic engineering, artificial selection and computing are certainly practical applications, so since the original version said "Understanding evolution can have practical applications, as well" this was wrong, however, this could be corrected if you were to change it to "Understanding phylogenies can have practical applications, as well", which is probably what you meant to say? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to avoid the word "macroevolution" wherever possible, since some people use it to mean evolutionary forces that act above the species level, such as species selection, others to patterns and trends in evolution, such as Cope's rule, and others to mean "evolutionary changes that produce new species". Tim Vickers (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Death talk archives

Hello, Richard. I was trying to archive Talk:Death and idk, it seems I've screwed it up royally. If you would be so kind as to pop over there (my contributions may also be useful) and have a look and fix it, and explain what I did wrong, it would be much appreciated. Thank you.Carl.bunderson (talk)

Death, eh? Haven't been watching that one for a while now. It's not immediately obvious to me that you have done anything wrong, or if you have it seems that it has been fixed. Just look at what other people have done when making an archive and you should be okay. We should probably put a template at the top to link the death archives together too. Richard001 (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems to have straightened itself out. It was just that the link still looked red after I made it, so I was confused. But all's well. Thanks again for examining it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Image cross checker - Bot request

Response to Your bot request. After looking at it I believe that it would be better done as a User script. I have constructed the following api query which tells me:

Imagerepository

local is uploaded on EN, shared if on commons

Pageid

If exists it mean that there's a local image description page

Among other bit of information, however since I'm not experienced using JS with the API I'll defer it to WP:US/R. —Dispenser 06:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Aplomado.JPG

I noticed that you created this page by putting it in Category:Images of birds. Did you do this because you thought this was a file here on Wikipedia (I make edits like that by accident occasionally)? If that wasn't the case (if you can even remember), I don't really see any reason to categorize the file here when the file is at Commons, especially since Commons already has its own (and far better) category and gallery system; after all it's not a featured picture or anything.

Actually, now that I look at another file, Image:Bird.parts.jpg, I see you have done that same, so I guess it was done deliberately. I'm not sure that we have a policy on this, but I'm guessing the consensus is not to create pages by adding them to such categories. Do you object to "deleting" such images? Richard001 (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. That was probably just my inner librarian kicking in, trying to organize bird images or something. But you're right, it's redundant to Commons. Do what you want! A²Kafir (and...?) 14:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Conservapedia Main Page.PNG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Conservapedia Main Page.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.Thank you. ViperSnake151 23:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Rodney

Uh... so what is an OTRS permission? --Helenalex (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I forwarded the email which gave me permission to use the pics on Wikipedia, and which said they were non copyright, to the English Wikipedia permissions email. --Helenalex (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Auger

Hi Richard. I was thinking. You might want to invite my office mate, Matthew Auger, in the Math Department at the University of Auckland as well to the Auckland Meetup 4. His username is Matthew Auger. He's been seriously contributing to Wikipedia for longer than I have. Thanks!HowiAuckland (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds October newsletter

The October 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice: AN/I

To Andycjp and others who might be interested. This notice is being sent to inform you that Andycjp’s disruptive editing has been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (AN/I):[1].

-- Hordaland (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Bird Videos

Hi Richard, all of my videos should have your category added now. Aviceda talk 20:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

transferring bird images from flickr

Hey Richard, thanks for the offer of transferring - I have just started expanding Golden Monarch and have 5 days from now to expand it and get it on T:DYK, so would be extremely grateful if you could do that image first, and I will do Hooded Butcherbird next. Cheers,Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have passed on the request. Will transfer them as they become available. Richard001 (talk) 08:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Spontaneous Generation

I have replied to your question on the redirect of Spontaneous Generation (before realising that you are an experienced wikipedian!) Basically, it could do with a page of its own and I have put my thoughts on the page in your discusion paragraph. IceDragon64 (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have now created the page by the simple expediant of copying the SG section from abiogenesis and editing the links. The section in the abio. article can be reduced now, as the abio article is too long. It needs various pictures etc, but its there, ready for your friend to work on!

IceDragon64 (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Biologist

I am a biologist. It's not a career, it's just what I do. I study biology for fun. --Vuerqex (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I study biology as well, but that doesn't make me a biologist as far as I'm aware. Richard001 (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a biologist! Vuerqex (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you're the smartest person in the world I guess you know better than I do. Richard001 (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Flickr photos

Hi Richard: Do you mind sending me a brief note containing the gist of what you think I should say in the newsletter about the Flickr photo situation? Just so's I get it right! : ) MeegsC | Talk 10:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Got to go now, but I'll get back to you on this one. Richard001 (talk) 10:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Richard; that'll work perfectly. MeegsC | Talk 08:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such)for Science related articles

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ?

User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)."

We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Wikipedia bureaucracy ? Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds November newsletter

The November 2024 issueof the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by TinucherianBot (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Banner kiwi3.gif

Restored it.--Maxim_(talk) 14:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Input requested at WP:FPC

Hi Richard0001,

Having made a quick check on the history of Nectar I noticed you've made several contributions to the article. I recently nominated an image I added to this article, Image:Australian painted lady feeding closeup.jpg at FPC. One recurring argument, and one which I disagree, is that the image in question has no encyclopaedic value in this article. I was wondering if you, as an editor of the article in question, could help resolve this issue? Thanks,--Fir0002 01:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

barnstar

Thanks, though I must admit I am quite surprised as I am usually pretty slapdash when it comes to getting images (I used to be terrible at creating cats for them in Commons). Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I have only recently started creating categories for new species I upload myself. We have so many images to upload that it can be argued that those details are not so important. Richard001 (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Larks

Leave it with me, I'll check which is most common

jimfbleak (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Images

About the images that you requested from "Michael Woodruff" on flickr. He has left a message on my talk page on commons. Please see my talk page on commons. Snowman (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for putting my right. I jumped to the conclusion that he was "M Woodruff" because of the image that he was pointing to. Now I realise that he is a new user getting used to the ropes. Some of his images that the new user has uploaded need a tidy up.Snowman (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Joy

 Marlith (Talk)  has given you a kitten! Gifts of kittens promote Wikilove and holiday spirt. Hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and raise the holiday spirit! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

 Marlith (Talk)  04:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Monkey Business

I can't keep track of what I upload where! Between Flickr, Facebook and the Commons... I dunno, I sometimes forget to do upload something somewhere. I usually make sure that Wikipedia has an image if the species hasn't been uploaded here before, and I did upload one of this species before. I don't know why it never got attached to the correct article, I usually do that too, but I notice the taxonomy has changed and that may explain it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I plan to. I should rummage around, I'm sure I have more monkey shots I could upload. I have to admit I tend to lose interest in uploading shots when the species already has images. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: The Selfish Gene edit and question

Hi Richard, thanks for the link - I remember that now; it jumped at me when I read the article. And I think you're right - it should be made as clear as possible that the theory can logically only apply to exact copies of genes and not to alleles; it's pretty integral to the gene-cented view and any layperson reading the article needs to know that. So yes, I'd be in favour of your new wording. Cheers, AC+79 3888 (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's true. I suppose it only holds if we defined a gene based on its amino acid sequence... it runs into problems when two different nucleotide sequences code for the same amino acid sequence (or even a slightly different amino acid sequence if function is totally unaffected). So it's a tricky one. I certainly don't think the "similar genes" should be re-instated because it's too vague, it seems to imply "genes coding for similar amino acid sequences" generally, independent of function, so I think it's pretty misleading. Perhaps just qualifying the statement by adding that the alternative genes must code for an amino acid sequence that ultimately is identical functionally? How best to word it is another matter! AC+79 3888 (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Richard, the text currently reads: gene sets "helping" copies of themselves in other bodies to replicate. What do you think about maybe putting something in parenthesis like "or genes with the same phenotypic effect", so it would read: gene sets "helping" copies of themselves (or genes with the same phenotypic effect) in other bodies to replicate? I think this clarifies it nicely without over-complicating things. --AC+79 3888 19:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Logrunner

I originally uploaded the image as a PD, given its age. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It's from John Gould's The Birds of Australia. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

North American River Otter

Hello Richard.

In regards to your audio and video inquiry, I would like to get an image of the river otter's inhabitation range map in the article, if possible. There is a good photo at the IUCN Redlist page on the river otter that indicates the animal's distribution throughout North America. Here is the link:http://maps.iucnredlist.org/map.html?id=12302 . I believe the image could be well-suited in the Distribution and Habitat section of this article.

Thank you and best regards, Wikitrevor (talk) —Precedingunsigned comment added by 66.56.205.155 (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Infanticide

It seems that you were involved in editing the article. I am curious what happened to the gatekeepers of the article? if you or anyone knowledgeable of the topic could just put it in the watchlist it would be great (I don't have much time to edit it or argue in talk page about the new editors' recent modifications). Regards, Thantalteresco (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I've virtually stopped watching articles myself. If you mean infanticide (rather than infanticide (zoology)) I haven't really had that much to do with it. Richard001 (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Antipredator adaptation

Hi Richard, just wondering if you'd wanna take a look at Antipredator adaptation, as I've changed it quite a lot over the past few days (mostly logged out), and I saw you've edited it a lot too - Anxietycello (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Hans Eysenck.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Hans Eysenck.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)