1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1011, 12
... is now a thing. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The New Page Reviewer's Iron Award
Hello Elmidae,
The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.
Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!
Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)
New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js
User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js
User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js
Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.
Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.
Please read MOS:ELLIPSIS.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not hard for you to write which scientists said this in the article you linked? Or at least attach a more primary source rather than a newspaper article? I am following the conventions given under "Unsupported attributions," which gives examples of weasel words such as, "scientists claim," "research has shown," etc. The wording which you defend in Trumpeter swan is almost verbatim one of the listed examples of weasel words (i.e., "scientists attribute..."), and so it might not match Wikipedia's manual of style.
These are not my subjective standards; these are Wikipedia's own standards. While I am not necessarily disagreeing with what has been written there, it helps to write which scientists have put forth which results, since they can look further into that scientists' work and also compare these in cases where scientists might disagree. Also, it would help if the source you put there were at least an actual scientific journal article (e.g., the ones that the New York Times article might be sourcing) rather than the New York Times itself, as more mainstream, non-technical newspapers are definitely not immune from featuring views which may not represent the consensus within a certain academic field. Lastly, you say that, "Readers can check the source," but somebody who is not a New York Times subscriber is going to get paywalled.Lisztrachmaninovfan (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very curious why the line referring back to iNaturalist was removed as being 'unreliable '? Is it because anything on iNaturalist is unreliable or that Associate Professor Tanya Latty who is running the project that I linked to is not credible? perhaps should I have referenced T.Latty in more detail about the statement ? I am very new here and am genuinely seeking guidance.. cheersEdisstrange (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying and clearing that up ! Cheers Edisstrange (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have read Vanamonde93's reply that he/she mentioned. I have linked artivcles where Eunuchs killed two newborn babies, and also killed a man for not paying money. I don't understand why he says that is not extortion but harassment, begging. Most likey they don't check all sources properly. I have also mentioned about arrests, public protests.
I didn't mention vernacular media as I found English media.
These are the articles I didn't mentioned, but linking here.
Why eunuchs are allowed to extort money? asks Lokayukta-https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/why-eunuchs-are-allowed-to-extort-money-asks-lokayukta/articleshow/35749004.cms Lokayukta is government.
As I have linked many articles, where the name of the topic is extortion, here the word extortyion is used within the article not heading.--India's estimated 50,000 eunuchs are at a crossroads of survival in their shadowy half-world of superstition and extortion. --https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1983/08/07/indias-eunuchs-have-fallen-in-esteem/7779c281-15a0-4fac-8b7f-69db60d4d17c/ Rambo XTerminator (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TY for the edits on Bombus crotchii; I tend not to think of "overcitation" as being template-worthy but made a bunch of smart changes. I stand corrected. jengod (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as an active New Page Patroller, I wanted to make sure you were aware of an upcoming Wikimedia Foundation project to improve the PageTriage extension. We recently published results of user interviews, and have some findings that we would value patrollers' opinions on. If you haven't yet, please consider adding the project page to your watchlist to stay up to date with our progress! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thx for your restore. My edit removed a period ("."), somehow my edit was on an older version of the article (it was weird, I saw that text flash as the edit processed, I ignored it but shouldn't have, should have checked this edit history after; still don't know how I got entered into an older version). Apologies. Again thanks. --IHTS (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert my edits on the Wikipedia article giraffe? In your edit summary you said it was about the genus not the species, if it's about the genus why does it have a binomial name which is Giraffa camelopardalis? If it is really about the genus then what is Giraffa camelopardalis, is this not about the species? I'm confused, please explain. Dancing Dollar (let's talk) 10:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you going to all my contributions and reverting them? Feels a bit like stalking. You said things like "low quality" which is a personal opinion maybe but the videos are in high resolution 4k and clearly show the behavior of the subject of the articles. Not every Wiki user has seen these birds in real life, and a video helps to illustrate motion/behavior etc. Please justify yourself before further stalking my contributions. Thanks. Nesnad (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Hmm. I noticed now that you also reverted my goldfish contribution etc too. This clearly feels targeted. Have I offended you? Lets discuss it. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.
Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.
For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
For the Arbitration Committee,~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has hundreds of articles on bacteria that are "not validly published" according to LPSN (I'm not sure what the SN in LPSN is actually supposed to mean: I would say that names that aren't validly published don't have any "Standing in Nomenclature"). I'm not supportive of creating stubs for species that that aren't validly published, but I'm not sure that all such articles should be deleted, or that "not validly published" status in LPSN is sufficient grounds for deletion (on the other hand, SPECIESOUTCOMES can't be applied as a reason to keep). To pick a couple species that aren't validly published: Mycobacterium orygis is a human and veterinary pathogen; Achromobacter obae has had the complete genome sequenced (although that also true for many other species these days). I think these are likely notable species. And it's not just species; there are a number of higher level taxa that haven't been validly published, most notably, Bacteria itself, but another is Class Tissierellia. I am having more trouble finding invalidly published higher taxa than last time I browsed LPSN, but there are still some out there (until fairly recently, phyla weren't covered by the nomenclatural code, so there were no phyla that were validly published until October 2021, also see a https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/newly-renamed-prokaryote-phyla-cause-uproar-69578 news story] about phyla names), but Wikipedia had articles on bacterial phyla before that (albeit under different names).
Not being published in IJSEM is a major reason why many names listed in LPSN aren't validly published, but IJSEM does regularly publish lists validating names published in other journals. The purported publication for Saccharopolyspora salina has numerous problems and I think that it is OK to delete, but using "not validly published" as a criterion for deleting bacteria article could end up leaving Wikipedia with holes in the higher taxonomy of bacteria. Plantdrew (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How are they NOT adventure novels? Just curious. (12.138.16.154 (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)12.138.16.154)[reply]
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Kiyo (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I am new to wiki and tried to add a citation to support my edits but didn’t succeed. The citation would be a PhD thesis from the University of Melbourne by KW Lowe “The feeding and breeding biology of the Sacred Ibis (sic Australian White Ibis) in southern Victoria”. 1984. Hoping you can re-instate my edits and advise how to add the citation. Cheers. Dribis (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Kākāpō for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Backlog
Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.
Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.
Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.
You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.
Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).
Reminders
I saw that you reverted my edit on the page Crotalus oreganus. Given that there are numerous other articles on species where the common name comes before the scientific name, I would like to have your opinion on why this page deserves to be written differently. I'm open to listening to anyone of your reasoning.
Sincerely, BLITZKRIEGCAT (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.
Reminders:
Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello :-) Worked hard to add another article about a super rare disease: NTBI-Glycolysis-Cytopathy (NG-Cytopathy). But where if not here? People need to know. Would you be so kind to check it? As far as I understand this is necessary. Thanks a lot! BenjaminFeldman (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Elmidae,
I do not understand your revert on this page.
no part of Ukraine is part of the drainage divide of any river flowing into the Baltic Sea (See : Drainage divide). You revered my correction without explanation, so I guess you have a different definition of what constitutes a basin country ?
thank you in advance.
SarmentFurtif (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elmidae! A colleague at the place where I work pointed me toward a citation on the "Pileated woodpecker" page which seems to be bogus ("Woodpecker excavations promote tree decay and carbon storage in an old forest"); this citation was added by Filippetr2 back in March. After doing a quick search for it and realizing that the DOI was misassigned and the title did not yield any hits, I removed it. We suspect this was an AI-generated citation. Either way, I removed it and made a note on the WP:LLM talk page. I was wondering if you had any thoughts about this?--Gen. Quon[Talk] 14:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gyurkovicsarna. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Australiformis by Mattximus Rodrigues night heron by FunkMonk Titanis by Augustios Paleo List of lorisoids by PresN List of storks by AryKun Brontosaurus by Augustios Paleo, reviewed by The Morrison Man Eukaryote by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Fritzmann2002 Stramenopile by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Fritzmann2002 Titanoboa by Augustios Paleo, reviewed by SilverTiger12 Antarctopelta by Augustios Paleo, reviewed by Jens Lallensack Anna Blackburne by Kusma, reviewed by Etriusus Anomochilus leonardi by AryKun, reviewed by Amitchell125 Nyctibatrachus manalari by AryKun, reviewed by Sammi Brie Mimodactylus by FunkMonk, reviewed by Jens Lallensack Nyctibatrachus major by AryKun, reviewed by Etriusus Anomochilus weberi by AryKun, reviewed by Etriusus Plant by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Cessaune
Ohmdenosaurus by Jens Lallensack Polar bear by LittleJerry Mimodactylus by FunkMonk List of cercopithecoids by PresN List of tapaculos by AryKun Klallamornis by Larrayal Hypericum perforatum by Fritzmann2002 Holozoa by Snoteleks Teloschistaceae by Esculenta Carcharodontosaurus by Augustios Paleo Nyctibatrachus radcliffei by AryKun Anomochilus by AryKun
This month has seen an incredible amount of activity creating high quality content, with 3 FAs, 3 FACs, and a veritable flood of GAs and GANs, not to mention the FLs and FLCs. To help maintain this high level of activity going forward, WikiProject Tree of Life is starting a new monthly rolling contest, inspired by the contest run by WikiProject Military History. This contest should hopefully help incentivize editors to contribute in ways that are less daunting than writing articles that are GA and FA-quality. Even improving articles from stub to start class, or helping other editors by reviewing their work at GAN, FAC, or FLC, gets you points, with bonus points for articles with especially high page views. Make sure to participate in any way you can, and help improve the 'pedia while having fun and winning Barnstars!
Discuss this issue
You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello :-) Would you be so kind to check the new article Oshtoran Syndrome. I worked hard on it and it would be a pity if it ends in the unchecked desert. And please, no internal link to PANS. Therefore the link to Standford. This topic has, for reasons only the Lord knows, been a battleground in the English Wikipedia of which the new article should not become a part of. Thanks so much in advance -BenjaminFeldman (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
those are sourced from the website of the philippine eagle foundation. specifically for the pair which goes into more detail into them. what makes you think its unsourced?? Kurt247 (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!
October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.
PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.
Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.
Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List of cercopithecoids by PresN List of tapaculos by AryKun Polar bear by Little Jerry Ohmdenosaurus by Jens Lallensack Amargatitanis by Augustios Paleo, reviewed by Jens Lallensack Teloschistaceae by Esculenta, reviewed by Chiswick Chap Holozoa by Snoteleks, reviewed by Esculenta Ashy flycatcher by AryKun, reviewed by Jens Lallensack Nyctibatrachus radcliffei by AryKun, reviewed by Jens Lallensack Carcharodontosaurus by Augustios Paleo, reviewed by SilverTiger12 Life by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Jens Lallensack Apatosaurinae by Augustios Paleo, reviewed by Jens Lallensack Hypericum perforatum by Fritzmann2002, reviewed by Femke
Mountain pigeon by AryKun List of hominoids by PresN List of cranes by AryKun List of tarsiiformes by PresN Lycorma meliae by Etriusus Aristonectes by Amirani1746 Animal echolocation by Chiswick Chap Hyalospheniidae by Snoteleks Buellia frigida by Snoteleks
The first edition of our new monthly contest had perhaps a little less participation than I hoped for, but it still resulted in a huge amount of content work, mainly focussed on de-stubbing articles on little-known species, although we did also see two GAs for Holozoa and Hypericum perforatum. Overall, over 60 articles were improved, with most going from stubs or redlinks to fully fleshed out articles. The winner this month was Simongraham, who improved 21 articles about spiders, mainly to B and C class, and racked up 70 points, over twice the next highest. Hopefully, we'll continue to see such great work next month, with even more participants and even more articles improved. Also anyone who wants to help coordinate the contest can just drop by at the talk page, I really need help.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Elmidae:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive! The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
Mimodactylus by FunkMonk Mountain pigeon by AryKun List of tarsiiformes by PresN List of hominoids by PresN List of cranes by AryKun Outline of lichens by MeegsC Lycorma meliae by Etriusus, reviewed by Chiswick Chap Oak by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Esculenta Animal echolocation by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Primium Elke Mackenzie by Esculenta, reviewed by Moriwen Dwarf pufferfish by Primium, reviewed by Chiswick Chap Hyalospheniidae by Snoteleks, reviewed by An anonymous username, not my real name Paroedura maingoka by Olmagon, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
Hypericum sechmenii by Fritzmann2002 Teloschistaceae by Esculenta Nyctibatrachus major by AryKun List of sunbirds by AryKun List of platyrrhines by PresN Handicap principle by Chiswick Chap Slime mold by Chiswick Chap Punctelia by Esculenta Pulchrocladia retipora by Esculenta Anaptychia ciliaris by Esculenta Mocquard's Madagascar ground gecko by Olmagon Zavodovski Island by Jo-Jo Eumerus Chrysothrix chlorina by Esculenta Wood-pasture hypothesis by AndersenAnders Mammalian kidney by D6194c-1cc Lepas testudinata by Etriusus Teratoscincus roborowskii by Olmagon
The second edition of our monthly contest was even better than the last month, with 80 articles improved spanning the entire tree of life. The winner this month was Quetzal1964, who contributed to 47 articles, mainly relating to marine fish, and racked up 81 points in the process. In second place was simongraham, who got 60 points from 14 articles on various species of jumping spiders. simongraham is still at the top of our overall standings, with 130 points, and Quetzal1964's close behind on 108. The November edition of the contest is now open: feel free to drop by and participate if you work on any TOL-related articles this month.
-MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[1] Hi!
I reverted back because it is impossible per our normal definition of the term in science.
jps (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Elmidae, Thanks for reverting the last addition done to Schneider Electric page related to AECOP information. Would it be possible to replicate that change also un the French version of the page (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneider_Electric) Thanks in advance! Beatriz at Schneider Electric (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{{NoACEMM}}
Hypericum sechmenii by Fritzmann2002 Nyctibatrachus major by AryKun List of platyrrhines by PresN List of gymnosperm families by Dank Varroa destructor by KoA, reviewed by Chiswick Chap Lepas testudinata by Etriusus, reviewed by Jens Lallensack Island bronze-naped pigeon by AryKun, reviewed by SilverTiger12 Placidium arboreum by Esculenta, reviewed by SilverTiger12 Orange-billed lorikeet by AryKun, reviewed by Jens Lallensack Spinular night frog by AryKun, reviewed by An anonymous username, not my real name Crested cuckoo-dove by AryKun, reviewed by Femke Aristonectes by Amirani1746, reviewed by Jens Lallensack Mocquard's Madagascar ground gecko by Olmagon, reviewed by Etriusus Femoral gland by Esculenta, reviewed by Jens Lallensack Ameerega munduruku by AryKun, reviewed by Jens Lallensack Snowy plover by Jens Lallensack, reviewed by SilverTiger12 Crested cuckoo-dove by AryKun, reviewed by Grungaloo Wood-pasture hypothesis by AndersenAnders, reviewed by Chiswick Chap Hypericum bupleuroides by Fritzmann2002, reviewed by Etriusus Teratoscincus roborowskii by Olmagon, reviewed by Esculenta Pulchrocladia retipora by Esculenta, reviewed by Etriusus Anaptychia ciliaris by Esculenta, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
Snowy plover by Jens Lallensack List of birds of Bouvet Island by AryKun Laomaki by An anonymous username, not my real name Nyctibatrachus robinmoorei by AryKun Nyctibatrachus sabarimalai by AryKun Nyctibatrachus mewasinghi by AryKun Eucalyptus gomphocephala by Hughesdarren
The third edition of our monthly contest saw Quetzal1964 win for the second month in a row, scoring 68 points from 39 articles about a variety of marine fishes. In second place for the month is Olmagon, who scored 45 points from 10 articles on extinct crustaceans and geckoes. In the overall standings, Quetzal1964 leapfrogged over simongraham into first place, with 176 points from 109 articles; simongraham is now in second place with 136 points from 37 articles. The December edition of the contest is now open: feel free to drop by and participate if you work on any TOL-related articles this month.
Now, this newsletter is technically not new, but I have only recently become aware of its existence and am only a month late, so it still counts. Wikiproject Fungi's Lichen task force has a new newsletter that is very nicely formatted and also features much better writing than this newsletter. Anyone interested in receiving the newsletter can add their name here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snowy plover by Jens Lallensack Teloschistaceae by Esculenta List of birds of Bouvet Island by AryKun List of sunbirds by AryKun Slime mold by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Esculenta Handicap principle by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Etriusus Insect by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Iztwoz Wheat by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by KoA Eucalyptus gomphocephala by Hughesdarren, reviewed by Grungaloo Buellia frigida by Esculenta, reviewed by J Milburn Nyctibatrachus robinmoorei by AryKun, reviewed by Grungaloo Nyctibatrachus mewasinghi by AryKun, reviewed by Grungaloo Nyctibatrachus sabarimalai by AryKun, reviewed by Grungaloo Great cuckoo-dove by AryKun, reviewed by Jens Lallensack Lake Patzcuaro salamander by Etriusus, reviewed by Grungaloo Anoplotherium by PrimalMustelid, reviewed by 20 upper
Alpine ibex by LittleJerry Pseudastacus by Olmagon Pachysentis by Mattximus List of primates by PresN Banded palm civet by Cremastra Perothops by Memer15151 Hypericum hircinum by Fritzmann2002 Boquila by Etriusus and Veridicae Aptostichus barackobamai by Etriusus Buffy-tufted marmoset by André Ribeiro Cardoso Ant mimicry by Chiswick Chap Mosquito by Chiswick Chap Anopheles by Chiswick Chap Rice by Chiswick Chap Pliosaurus andrewsi by Amirani1746 Triassosculda by Abdullah raji Flaco (owl) by Rhododendrites Crassispira incrassata by Etriusus Sei whale by 20 upper
And so ends the fourth edition of the monthly rolling contest, as well as the 2023 Tree of Life Contest as a whole. This month saw simongraham win with a very impressive 120 points from 27 articles. Quetzal1964 was second with 74 points from 37 articles. The annual contest was a close race between simongraham and Quetzal1964; simongraham won first place with 256 points from 64 articles, and Quetzal1964 was second with 250 points from 146 articles. Snoteleks was third with 79 points from 33 articles. Congratulations to everyone who won this year and my gratitude to everyone else who helped raise the quality of articles in our little corner of Wikipedia this year. Additionally, a very Happy New Year to everyone in the project and here's looking forward to continuing our good work in 2024!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wisconsin86 was just blocked for WP:CITESPAM and that account is part of a whole ring of accounts whose sole purpose is to spam papers by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena into articles. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image i edited in is simply labeled wrong. Brachyplatystoma does not resemble Fish br.jpg, which is obviously a SAmerican redtail catfish; you can verify the sorry state of images for the Piraiba yourself in Commons.
Giving you a heads up for the re-revert. Anthropophoca (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your resolute action at ANI. You were correct that changes did not need to be discussed at the Talk page just because of little new-content activity - this species has been one of the most overlooked in terms of research. Nonetheless, some days the article receives over 100 visitors.
I note that you have placed your trout slap for User:Augmented Seventh on my Talk page with a call, and that may have been your intention. Regards, 14.2.205.177 (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many more citations are needed? Weavingowl (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alpine ibex by LittleJerry Markham's storm petrel by FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack, and Therapyisgood List of primates by PresN List of birds of Alberta by grungaloo Rice by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by RecycledPixels Barley by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Bruxton Chicken by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by DocZach Cereal by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Bruxton Ant mimicry by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by AryKun Anopheles by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by AryKun Mosquito by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by 20 upper Cherry blossom by Reconrabbit, reviewed by Chiswick Chap Sei whale by 20 upper, reviewed by grungaloo Megaherbivore by 20 upper, reviewed by Chiswick Chap Brown bear by 20 upper, reviewed by Chiswick Chap Indian rhinoceros by 20 upper, reviewed by Chiswick Chap Hypericum hircinum by Fritzmann2002, reviewed by grungaloo Hypericum foliosum by Fritzmann2002, reviewed by Chiswick Chap Hypericum grandifolium by Fritzmann2002, reviewed by Esculenta Boquila by Etriusus, reviewed by Chiswick Chap Aptostichus barackobamai by Etriusus, reviewed by Esculenta Crassispira incrassata by Etriusus, reviewed by 20 upper Punctelia by Esculenta, reviewed by Ealdgyth Chrysothrix chlorina by Esculenta, reviewed by Ealdgyth Chrysothrix chlorina by Esculenta, reviewed by Ealdgyth Ramalina peruviana by Esculenta, reviewed by Ealdgyth Menemerus animatus by simongraham, reviewed by Esculenta Afraflacilla braunsi by simongraham, reviewed by grungaloo Nasutoceratops by FunkMonk, reviewed by Jens Lallensack Pseudastacus by Olmagon, reviewed by FunkMonk Angustidontus by Super Dromaeosaurus and Ichthyovenator, reviewed by Amitchell125 Pruemopterus by Super Dromaeosaurus and Ichthyovenator, reviewed by Etriusus Black-billed magpie by grungaloo, reviewed by Jens Lallensack Black-capped chickadee by grungaloo, reviewed by Jens Lallensack Horned sungem by Jens Lallensack, reviewed by grungaloo Flaco (owl) by Rhododendrites, reviewed by Etriusus Telonemia by Snotoleks, reviewed by Esculenta "Pliosaurus" andrewsi by Amirani1746, reviewed by grungaloo Beaver drop by Lightburst, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
Horned sungem by Jens Lallensack Tufted jay by grungaloo Nasutoceratops by FunkMonk Maize by Chiswick Chap Cattle by Chiswick Chap Pig by Chiswick Chap Domestic duck by Chiswick Chap Eusociality by Chiswick Chap Fish by Chiswick Chap Barnacle by Chiswick Chap Ochrophyte by Snotoleks Parvilucifera by Snotoleks Thalattoarchon by Amirani1746 Hydropunctaria amphibia by Esculenta Melanohalea by Esculenta Spot test (lichen) by Esculenta Lecideaceae by Esculenta Hypericum × inodorum by Fritzmann2002 Hypericum sect. Androsaemum by Fritzmann2002 Olga Hartman by Viriditas Mixtotherium by PrimalMustelid Enhydriodon by PrimalMustelid Lentinus brumalis by Зэгс ус
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I wanted to let you know that I reversed your draftification of ...a nastal chaos. The reason I did this is because articles older than 90 days should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD, per WP:DRAFTIFY (point 2d). Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Horned sungem by Jens Lallensack Tufted jay by grungaloo Pseudastacus by Olmagon List of erinaceids by PresN Primates by PresN Hypericum sect. Androsaemum by Fritzmann2002 Thalattoarchon by Amirani1746, reviewed by Esculenta Lentinus brumalis by Зэгс ус, reviewed by Chiswick Chap Hypericum sect. Androsaemum by Fritzmann2002, reviewed by Maxim Masiutin Hypericum × inodorum by Fritzmann2002, reviewed by AryKun Barnacle by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Lightburst Maize by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by AryKun Pig by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Wolverine XI Orange (fruit) by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by 750h+ Fish by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Reconrabbit Organism by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Esculenta Hydropunctaria amphibia by Esculenta, reviewed by AryKun Melanohalea by Esculenta, reviewed by AryKun Lecideaceae by Esculenta, reviewed by Wolverine XI Xylopsora canopeorum by Esculenta, reviewed by AryKun Spot test (lichen) by Esculenta, reviewed by AryKun Gustaf Einar Du Rietz by Esculenta, reviewed by Chiswick Chap Allocalicium by Esculenta, reviewed by Simongraham Multiclavula mucida by Esculenta, reviewed by Chiswick Chap Aphaena submaculata by Etriusus, reviewed by Wolverine XI White-tailed jay by Grungaloo, reviewed by Chiswick Chap Fork-tailed drongo by The Blue Rider, reviewed by Chiswick Chap Northern green anaconda by Chaotic Enby, reviewed by Geardona Heptamegacanthus by Mattximus, reviewed by Esculenta Mixtotherium by PrimalMustelid, reviewed by FunkMonk Diplobune by PrimalMustelid, reviewed by Wolverine XI Ochrophyte by Snoteleks, reviewed by Ealdgyth Parvilucifera by Snoteleks, reviewed by Fritzmann2002 Urceolus by Snoteleks, reviewed by Fritzmann2002 Plexippoides regius by Simongraham, reviewed by Grungaloo Olga Hartman by Viriditas, reviewed by Lightburst Giant panda by Wolverine XI, reviewed by Thebiguglyalien Enchylium conglomeratum by Xkalponik, reviewed by Wolverine XI
Great cuckoo-dove by AryKun Heptamegacanthus by Mattximus List of talpids by PresN List of birds of New Brunswick by B3251 List of forest-inventory conifers in Canada by Dank Dissoderma odoratum by NotAGenious Xiphodon by PrimalMustelid Banana by Chiswick Chap Phintella parva by Simongraham Evarcha maculata by Simongraham Asian elephant by Wolverine XI Megafauna by Wolverine XI Fishing cat by Wolverine XI Thistle tortoise beetle by Justinxuje Enchylium limosum by Xkalponik Enchylium polycarpon by Xkalponik Skeleton panda sea squirt by Chaotic Enby Hypericum aciferum by Fritzmann2002 Hypericum russeggeri by Fritzmann2002 Hypericum minutum by Fritzmann2002 Chrompodellid by Snoteleks Aquilegia sibirica by Pbritti Carabus japonicus by NHanselman Charles De Geer by Yakikaki Cheetah reintroduction in India by Magentic Manifestations
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manav_Bhinder until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Pradeepsethi.in (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the reason for merging Yaduvanshi Ahirs into Ahir article? 2409:4085:8583:6F2E:0:0:2A75:D0B0 (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You commented on a post involving me on ANI[3]. In absence of any wikiproject that I know of that deals with the translocation of species in prehistoric times, I informally contacted an individual editor with a significant track record of that sort of article. It seems unfair to post their answer on a high traffic site like ANI, but their answer is at [4]. I don't know what opinion you have of the answer I got (presumably written on a mobile phone!), but it makes me think I perhaps undersold the level of problem that I and a small number of other editors have with the original complainant. Incidentally, I was thanked[5] for the edit that seems to have triggered the ANI. You can see that this is an editor who has a small contribution to Austronesian peoples. I am beginning to believe that others have been driven away.
Any further thoughts you have would be welcome.
(I should say that I will probably be unable to answer anything on Wikipedia on Monday or most of Tuesday as I will be travelling.) ThoughtIdRetired TIR 19:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping me undo my edits to this article. Butterfingers indeed, although I'm still unsure how I managed it. - Nidator T / C 06:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to revisit the recent edit regarding the cancellation of the “Of Love” exhibition that was removed from the “Censorship in Germany” page.
The reason I believe this event is relevant to the topic of censorship is based on the broader definition provided at the beginning of the page, which mentions censorship is mainly exerted in the form of restriction of access to certain media (examples include motion pictures and video games) to older adolescents or adults [1]. The decision by the Lichtenberg district office to cancel the exhibition due to its content—specifically, the reference to a “genocide in Gaza” without acknowledging the October 7, 2023, attacks—seems to align with this definition. It’s a clear instance where public access to certain political expressions in a public venue was restricted.
While I understand that the district office has the right to decide what is displayed in its galleries, this decision directly limited the public’s access to the exhibition due to its political content, which, in a broader sense, could be considered a form of censorship.
Given that the page includes examples of censorship related to media access and content restrictions, I believe this incident is relevant and could contribute to the discussion of how censorship is applied in contemporary Germany, especially in publicly funded spaces.
I would appreciate your thoughts on this and whether we might find a way to include this event in the broader context of censorship. Camioncu (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you removed part of the text quoting Rider Haggard on the topic of race. It's not "original research" nor my own opinion: it is the author himself talking on the topic of hierarchies among races or cultures. I only cited one paragraph but he makes the same point several times in the same book. "No original research" is to be used for "facts, allegations, and ideas for which no reliable, published source exists". The book written by the very author the article is about should be considered, without doubt, a valid source. ( JohnMizuki (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC) )[reply]
I saw your pejorative comment about my recent removal of the {sic} tag from footnote 43. "R. D. Mullen- The Books of H. Rider Haggard: A Chronological Survey". www.depauw.edu in the article H. Rider Haggard. Yes, I do understand what {sic} refers to. As evident from the article's history, I actually added that specific {sic} tag on Sept. 4 with a descriptive edit summary indicating why I did so, in keeping with its typical usage. But after doing so, I also went a step further and contacted Istvan Csicsery-Ronay, Jr., Emeritus Professor of English and World Literature at DePauw University and Co-Editor of Science Fiction Studies who published the cited material. I explained to him the existence of the typo in hopes that he would consider correcting it. To my pleasant surprise, he responded by the next day that he had, indeed, corrected the typo. After verifying such was the case, I then removed the {sic} tag that I had previously added, and corrected the spelling of "survey" in the footnote since the typo no longer exists in the referenced source. ShoneBrooks (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is policy that any articles that have been in mainspace for more than 90 days are not moved to draft, please see WP:DRAFTNO, and I counted 123 days. While I agree that the article needs work, draftify is not appropriate so I reverted it. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the additions you made to the article, however, your edit left this sentence: "Due to the deficiency in macronutrients and caloric intake, specifically protein and adult survivors that impact development." I would correct it, but do not really know what you were trying to say, and without researching this topic, I do not feel qualified to correct it. Regards, • Bobsd • (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits and comments make no sense.
— Smjg (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like you, when I looked at Carum leucocoleon and saw a conservation status supported by a reference to PoWO, I assumed it was an error. But some entries in PoWO, including this one, now give a status from the "Angiosperm Extinction Risk Predictions v1" under the "General information" tab. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you previously voted to keep, 15.ai, is being nominated for deletion. Would you mind giving your opinion here? Thank you! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/15.ai (2nd nomination) Tacotron2 (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec24}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.
ϢereSpielChequers 21:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The New Page Reviewer's NPP Barnstar Award
If I may ask, why were specifically those seven bird species I had written new articles about deleted and redirected to the pages of their genus? I've been creating hundreds of such stub pages on extinct species of modern genera for about half a year now and all have been approved by other palaeontology editors, and numerous stubs of extinct species of extant genera already existed before I started creating them, for example Aegypius jinniushanensis, Aegypius prepyrenaicus, Falco antiquus, Oryctolagus lacosti, Struthio kakesiensis, Struthio coppensi, Vombatus hacketti, Gazella harmonae, and Pongo weidenreichi.
Additionally, I do think the articles I made that got sunk into redirect pages could be expanded upon to be at least Start level, as the articles describing them do give some details as to what skeletal elements of them were found. Someone that has a detailed knowledge of bird anatomy could use the information to make a decent description section that's also easily readable for a non-expert. Some of these taxa also have some brief information about their ecology discussed in the papers describing them; I can make readable sections on those as that's my area of expertise. Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
there is usually much less info available for prehistoric than extant species to create substantial articles
How is my edit on the orca page not helpful? Please explain. Mk8mlyb (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I see your point regarding the reversion of the edits to this article, as a polite tip for the future, you could perhaps make them without being so incredibly patronising, arrogant, and condescending in your justifications for doing so to people making edits in good faith. You might find it easier to build consensus that way.(PaulThomas92 (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Weird, I don't know why it doesn't work for me. Anyway, the reason I was looking is because all the other recent edits by this user are copyright violations. See User talk:Broskalitre#Copyright. Would you be able to check if this is similar? Thanks! Jfire (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, how's it going? I've noticed that you've disputed my edits to an image portraying moa overhunting on Holocene extinction, and I understand your position that my edits have been reductive of the informity regarding the fauna of New Zealand prior to human arrival. However, I dispute this position on the ground that the image is provided squarely to illustrate the situation for the moa and not the broader landscape, as it was specifically them who humans drove to extinction, and the broader pattern that their extinction was a part of (human activity, not even broader mammal activity) is the whole focus of the article itself in the first place. I was actually the one who originally added that imagine, and I originally wrote the caption to single out humans specifically as being absent, and I later changed it to mammals more generally to further emphasize just how drastically humans had overthrown the previous order of minimal predators. My position is that placing emphasis on the mammals who squarely were there but didn't threaten the moa detracts from the point of the image, and it is therefore inappropriate to single out bats. As you have been the primary challenger to my edits, I hope to reach a resolution with you, if that will be ok. GOLDIEM J (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am just wondering, where in the pursuit of knowledge does protocol call for the removal of a series of edits without requesting a viable source? Your recent work on my edits have done damage I am not willing to replace. Had you simply said a source was needed for the information I was leaving, I would have worked to do so. Now, you have wasted time for us both, and reduced the viability of those articles for future readers (as I will not spend the time to add the information back, even with the sources). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RawrSean (talk • contribs) 02:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be clear to you that I am not experienced in the world of Wikipedia. The decision you made was made in poor judgement. Previous citation needed requests were fulfilled with haste. You made assumptions and eliminated the opportunity, as if I contain the knowledge of editing Wikipedia that you do. You have instead contributed to a great loss of information. P.S. Where do you think primary sources come from? Thin air? Or experts in the field? Just because I have personal experience does not mean I could not track down a suitable source. Yes, I refuse to 'click revert.' Wikipedia will suffer for your misaligned judgement. I hope that you will instead next time offer the individual a chance to be aware and correct, rather than taking over an entire day or two of someones time by reverting their work.
Hi. I don't understand why you reverted Trams in Brescia defining it "entirely superfluous". Article is related to trams in Brescia, such as Trams in Florence, Trams in Milan and Trams in Bologna. I wrote about their history and I'm going to add new content, such as network development and rolling stocks, in next weeks. Thanks and regards. Moliva (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please add a page number for the newly added book? LittleJerry (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The text is going to wikisource soon, but for now I need it to finish writing the article. My friend transcribed the text for me because I have a vision impairment and the OCR is inadequate. Can you please revert your edit? Thank you. Ivan (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.
We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this survey, which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view its privacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Sam Walton (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining the issue with my edit on the pine marten. After looking at what you meant by "less commonly" being important to the article, I changed my edit, only removing the word "also". DNocterum (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Macquarie Dictionary has entries for 'euthanase' and 'euthanise'; Wiktionary has 'euthanize', with 'euthanise' as British spelling, and 'euthanase'and 'euthanaze' as alternative spellings. IMHO 'euthanase' is Australian spelling, while 'euthanize' is U.S. spelling. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
widely accepted by who? who accepts the fact gorillas are herbivores? because nearly no one says they are herbivores anymore, infact wikpedia is one of the few places that still say they are herbivores
every zoo says they are either mostly given a primarily vegetarian diet or that they are omnivores, which means the same thing
WWF says they eat insects
Hell documentaries from likes of Sir David Attenborough has even said that they eat insects, especially when grooming
sure some populations of gorillas dont eat that many insects, but this wikipedia page is for all gorillas, there are literally some where half their diet is insects with a very large portion of a diet
like actually try and find an up to date source that says they are complete herbivores from a trusted source because they. do. not. exist. HCPM (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you undo my edit for tiger sharks? Do you consider orca prey to be apex predators? If so, why do other similar articles such as that on the white shark not call them "apex predators?" Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in June! The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 1 month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 June 2025 through 30 June 2025.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive. There is a backlog of over 3200 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]