User talk:Richard001: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:37, 17 June 2007

Geneticist

I saw that you helped edit the geneticist page. I have been working on it for a class and I was wondering if you had any other suggestions or helpful ideas on anything that could be added or changed on the page. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nichschn (talk • contribs) 17:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I was wondering if you could help me add a picture, I am new to wikipedia and I am not sure how to do this. Thanks for all of your help Nichschn 15:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Structure

I completely agree with your comment on the lewis structure article; the majority of the information too, doesn't fit with the text -- in the formal charges section, there are partial charges used in the initial example, which generally make it more confusing for those reading the article for the first time. I'm always wary of those who edit in things such as "consider", "imagine" or "suppose" because it's in a tone which some people can't derive meaning. Minestrone Soup 13:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Pā (Māori)

Can you please provide references for your change? Thank you. MadMaxDog 23:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. Wikipedia still has way too many claims without references, we should attempt to not add new stuff unless well referenced. Good of you to go to that effort. MadMaxDog 10:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a further note, the link you provided to me needs a password. But I think I can assume that what you say is correct. After all, not all references need to be available online. MadMaxDog 10:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I would like to place the text at User:Badgettrg/death into the Medicine subsection of the death article following causes of death / autopsy. Does this seem appropriate? - Badgettrg 00:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make your day

Jupiter12 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Jupiter12 02:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Erg

Thanks for the Good article rating on Erg (landform). Not to denigrate your efforts, but I feel like I got this one too easily. I mean, I really had to work hard to editing my first GA, Rancho Camulos to GA status and then this one you just come by and declare it good enough. If you have the time, perhaps you can reassess it. See User:IvoShandor/submissions/GA reviews/criteria for some help. After reading this, if you feel that the article still meets GA criteria as-is, I'm more than happy to accept the rating. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

assessment script

"I've just started using your script, and find it quite helpful. I noticed it comes up with the rating on disambiguation pages - would you be able to turn it off for those pages? Richard001 07:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)"

I've implemented this (for the majority of cases; I'm not concerned if it misses some, as it's a "nice to have"). Give it a try. –Outriggr § 08:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detritivores

I think the difference between detritivore and decomposer is just that detritivores are animals and decomposers are microbes. Or at least that's the only difference I can find in how the terms are used by soil ecologists. Elements of Ecology, by Smith & Smith (a pretty good college ecology textbook) is actually explicit about this distinction, but all my other references don't seem to notice how confusingly similar the definitions are. I'll tinker with the two pages a little more. Cheers, Justinleif 04:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet worm

Hi Richard. I found a bit of time over the weekend and I've re-started the translation of the German Stummelfüßer article. So far I've done the anatomy section - you can see my progress to date at User:Yummifruitbat/Velvet worm. It needs wikifying/linking and the German article doesn't have inline references, just a list at the end. Ironically all the references were originally in English, so hopefully my translation won't have lost too much of the original meaning via English-German-English... if there's any hope of an FAC when it's finished, it'll need someone to get hold of the reference works and do the citations properly. I think it's best for me to finish the entire translation first, then do a mass-update of the English article, so I'll do what I can while it's still in my sandbox. Feel free to add wikilinks etc. if you've got some free time. Best wishes, --YFB ¿ 08:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biologist listing

Thanks for putting me on the biologist list. As you probably realise, my main area is native freshwater fish of Australia, but I can also assist in more general aquatic topics.

Good luck finishing the B.Sc!

cheers

Codman 06:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Public domain images

Thank you for the suggestion, I am slowly moving Pd pictures from wikipedia to the commoms. As well as uploading any new pd picture I create to the commons. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started the transfers with Image:Bobcat sitting.jpg. The image is now on the commons, but it shows up as out of sync, and doesn't awknowledge the fact that it is on the commons through wikipedia. how do i fix that? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plant defense against herbivory

Hi Richard, I noticed that you nominated this article-which I worked on quite a bit-as a GAC, thank you. Unfortunately the article was not quite ready for such a move, and was failed as unstable. You will be happy to know that several areas of the article have been improved, and the other editors and I feel it may be appropriate to nominate the article again (a few days after any major other changes to fulfill the "stable criteria"). Perhaps you would take a look at the new and improved article, any comments or suggestions you might have would be welcome. Also, I noted that when you rated the article your edit summary said Assessed - a top article! but you actually assessed the article's importance as "high"; this is a bit confusing to me, could you enlighten me? Cheers--DO11.10 17:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Theory of Island Biogeography

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:The Theory of Island Biogeography, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:The Theory of Island Biogeography fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

This is the name of a book by E.O. Wilson. It should not redirect to the concept of island biogeography itself.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:The Theory of Island Biogeography, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Talk:The Theory of Island Biogeography itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 04:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalence point and endpoint

Hello, recently you suggested that Equivalence point be merged with a seperate, to be article called Titration curves.[[1]] Don't you think Endpoint (chemistry) is very similar to Equivalence point?Bless sins 17:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Deer2.jpg

The original image is at Image:Deer.jpg, which is actually already at the Commons. :p TheCoffee 14:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I wasn't quite clear about the concept of the Commons at the time, when I uploaded it in 2005. TheCoffee 07:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian biology students

You may want to join Category:Wikipedians interested in biology instead, as student cateogories by specific subjects are generally merged into 'interested in' categories due to overlap. –Pomte 05:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant niche on hold

I just thought that I would remind you that an article you recently contributed to, Vacant niche, has been reviewed and put on hold due to a few issues that don't meet the Good Article requirements. Keep in mind that it was reviewed 4 days ago and will not normally stay on hold for more than 7 days. I just wanted to make sure you knew in case you wanted to make the few changes. Otherwise the article will have to be resubmitted after the improvements are made. Thanks! Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 12:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 16 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article mobbing behavior, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 09:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Edit to WP:WPVS

It's interesting to read your answers, and you obviously have some experience with this, but couldn't you be a little less offensive in doing so? It's insulting to the whole project to effectively call it 'useless'. Gathering data and researching things is hardly useless; much of the data gathered has been useful already, both for informing debates and helping fight vandalism. Much more needs to be researched, and many of your answers are entirely inadequate for anyone who wants any detailed information on the subject. The research questions is just a rough draft of some possible research topics to stimulate further studies. You may not think it productive, but I certainly think it will be. You may now return to your useless vandal fighting, while we find a more efficient way to go about it :) Richard001 11:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the only findings you seem to have presented so far state things that are just as obvious. We know what vandalism is, we know how often it happens, we know why it happens, and we know how to deal with it. How exactly have your findings helped deal with vandalism? Telling us that 3-6% of edits are vandalism when we all know it's about 5% anyway is not awfully helpful – Gurch 13:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should also start thinking in terms of much larger sample sizes, rather than quoting results based on a few dozen edits to two decimal places. The sort of thing that used to reside at User:Gurch/Reports/Statistics (as for it to be undeleted if you can't see it) – Gurch 13:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mobbing behaior/To do

The youtube link was requested right above where I entered it. If no one is interested, at least I tried.--Curtis Clark 13:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 101: / Line 101: @@
 : You should also start thinking in terms of much larger sample sizes, rather than quoting results based on a few dozen edits to two decimal places. The sort of thing that used to reside at [[User:Gurch/Reports/Statistics]] (as for it to be undeleted if you can't see it) – [[User talk:Gurch|Gurch]] 13:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
+== Mobbing behaior/To do ==
+The youtube link was requested right above where I entered it. If no one is interested, at least I tried.--[[User:Curtis Clark|Curtis Clark]] 13:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)