User talk:Richard001

I generally post or reply on a user's own talk page, and prefer that other users reply here as I often neglect to watch their talk page. Please add comments to the bottom of the page.

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, talk 20:31, 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 December 2024 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 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://www.iucnredlist.org/details/12302/rangemap. I believe the image could be well-suited in the Distribution and Habitat section of this article.

Thank you and best regards, Wikitrevor (talk) —Preceding unsigned 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)

Bird navigation template

Hi Richard: I'm finally back on-line after a long time away (work!) and find that an edit you made here removed the Birds Outreach department (plus a number of other things) from the project's navigation template. Was there a specific reason for doing that? It means that those who aren't current members of the project can no longer easily reach our newsletter, and that the "welcome" banner isn't easily available for those who want to welcome new members. MeegsC | Talk 14:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not intentional. A friend pointed out I had screwed up the colour too; I thought that was all. Richard001 (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Rsnzlogo.gif)

You've uploaded File:Rsnzlogo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hi there, in response to a question about ecological niches on the evolution talkpage, I've added a paragraph on ecology to Evolution#Adaptation. However, as a molecular microbiologist I'm very aware that this isn't my subject. I noticed your comment on the ecological niche talkpage and thought this might be more your kind of thing. If it is, could you check what I've added and correct it/expand it if necessary? Many thanks Tim Vickers (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Invertebrates

I was about to recreate this category when I noted you had deleted it previously. However, there are a number of subcategories for it nonetheless. There are eight invertebrates by location categories (see here) and several others, e.g. Category:Extinct invertebrates and Category:Fictional invertebrates. It would also be suitable for e.g. Life in the Undergrowth, which is about invertebrates. Unless these are all to be deleted, shouldn't the parent invertebrate category be recreated? It doesn't have to be used as a taxonomic parent category; in fact a note cautioning not to do so might be appropriate. (Please respond on my talk page, or notify me of your response here if you like) Richard001 (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As a parent category for the existing "Inverterates by …" or "Invertebrates of …" categories, it could make some sense. It is only as a taxonomic category that it would be absurd, as you have spotted. I'd be concerned as long as there's a risk of all animal phyla except one being shoved into Category:Invertebrates by over-zealous editors. One solution would be to create the category as you suggest, with a note that it's not to be used as a taxonomic category. However, I suspect the better solution (although a lot more work and perhaps more contentious) is to replace the existing invert-based categories. Just as it makes little sense to have the main taxonomic hierarchy include the group "invertebrates" (containing all but one phylum and 99.9% of all taxa), so it doesn't make sense for more specific categories. I have had a look at Category:Extinct invertebrates, and, having created Category:Extinct insects, only two species were left directly in the invertebrates category. Creating a separate Category:Extinct annelids and either Category:Extinct crustaceans or (better, in my opinion) Category:Extinct arthropods would equally solve the problem (as would simply accepting a couple of unclassified species in Category:Extinct animals). Category:Fictional animals looks to be a similar situation. As a biologist, the division of all animal life into mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates seems very chauvinistic; the more appropriate system is to divide by phylum and then by class, etc. Overall then, I think the invertebrate categories should ultimately be removed. I haven't done it yet for Category:Extinct invertebrates, but I'm happy to do so. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Quote mining

Since you've contributed to it in the past, I thought you might want to look in once more on the article's present state and current RfC. arimareiji (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)