Jump to content

User talk:Cygnis insignis/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Cygnis insignis

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 12:24, 20 March 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

monsieur dignis

[edit]

in the realm of absurd messages of ten years ago in the wee small hours - here is another blast to regions various - there is move to encourage those editors who have the joy of biota=y to add a little friend otherwise known as biota-importance=low - which is the default position - having just to the place that got to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unknown-importance_Australian_biota_articles being less than 10k - am trying to ask and plea and cajole and beg for help all around from the punters who seem to think its sufficient to leave biota=y as the remnant allegiance at talk pages of biotic items to some very strange political ideology - I am on a mission not to destroy shopping centres or any particular fight of any sort to see if we can have biota-importance=low floating in glorious victory to dispose of isolated and lonely biota=yes tags, and to conquer the world and similar parallel universes with biota-importance=low - trust all is very well despite this absurd but important message JarrahTree 12:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All biota needs to establish its own relevance to this species everyday concerns, if it can not accommodate the market's up and down then how do we evaluate it's 'importance'? Bats. Bats have no anuses. Bats can cause pandemics like SARS. Bats survived a cataclysmic episode in our 'recent' history. And here we are. So it goes, Any guidance on this is most welcome, you know I am insanely NPOV.
How are you mate? I've been better and much worse, so putting it down as a win :–) cygnis insignis 15:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
fair to middling to last question - as far as anuses go - thats another question - if it lives, ergo whatever - its a carbon based life form - its biota... JarrahTree 23:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:South Bay Salt Works/GA2

[edit]

Cygnis insignis, were you planning on returning to your review here soon? The nominator has responded to your most recent comments. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Marsupial mole

[edit]

I would request that you voluntarily undo your reversion of my administrative action at Talk:Marsupial mole. The proposal elapsed without garnering anything but opposition. The close was appropriate. bd2412 T 17:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I currently regard your action as invalid, that is not necessarily a fixed position; I believe that are some things you just cannot see or be made aware of and you are unresponsive to concerns that questions your edits. So convince me otherwise: What is there in the oppose comments that you think validated your close? cygnis insignis 18:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is the burden of the proposer to persuade a consensus of the community to favor the move. Otherwise, the status quo remains in place. In this case, both opposers raised WP:COMMONNAME, even if they did not link to the policy specifically. If you disagree with the outcome, you are welcome to appeal at WP:MR. bd2412 T 18:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Something about COMMONNAME, you guess. And what reason was given in support of the move? cygnis insignis 18:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you made a claim about this does not mean that your claim was well-supported enough to be persuasive to the community. bd2412 T 18:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the request again. My opinion, or 'claim' as you state that, is of no consequence. This is one of the things I don't think you grasp very well. If you wish you may copy paste the substantive pros and cons here. cygnis insignis 19:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have already indicated that the appropriate venue for appealing the close is WP:MR. Otherwise, we are done here. bd2412 T 19:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is as I have said before, and I will add this bd2412, this is not some war game; we can and are working on something good here. 19:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Bd2412: If it is a puerile war you are attempting to goad me into, then rollback is one method of communicating that. I'll assume there is more to come? If you tell me what to expect, that will really unnerve me. cygnis insignis 19:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • recent interaction: /Archive_3#Your_comments_in_the_Chimpanzee_discussion.
  • WP:Rollback "Standard rollback may only be used in certain situations – editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed. Since rollback is part of the core administrator tools, an admin could be stripped of their administrative privileges entirely to remove those tools. "

Response by @Bd2412: here:

  • My username is "BD2412", as indicated in every instance on this page starting [[User:BD242|; pinging "bd2412" does nothing, as no such user exists (I have been correctly pinged hundreds of times, so this does not seem to be a problem for others). If you are raising the chimpanzee discussion to apologize for your personal attack, that has nothing to do with the close here. If you are raising WP:ROLLBACK to highlight the impropriety of your rollback of a proper admin action, and to suggest that your rollback rights need to be removed, there are other places where you can request that. If you have an issue with my proper close of the discussion at Talk:Marsupial mole, I have already twice pointed you to WP:MR, a route which you now seem to be waiving. You could also have raised your concern at WP:ANI. If you have an issue with the fact that all participants in the discussion opposed your proposal, you can take that up with Srnec and Danielklein. bd2412 T 15:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I copy'pasted from the signature, so adhere to that pseudo-pedantry you monster. You, as a contributor, are utterly insensible to anything that gets in the way of your ill-considered and unilateral actions, in the midst of discussions as a belligerent !vote, yet issue these perfectly formulated responses. If I was certain who I responding to I would know what to say, but I do wish everyone well. cygnis insignis 16:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Real-life interactions

[edit]

You wrote: "Would you be willing, within the bounds of our guidance on politeness, to identify those users who you have personally (sensu lato) interacted with?"

I would consider ClemRutter and WereSpielChequers to be actual friends as I have talked to them about more stuff than just Wikipedia (politics and history mostly). From other London meetups I can recall meeting Philafrenzy, EdwardX, Andrew Davidson, Broichmore, RHaworth, Whispyhistory, Johnbod, Jwslubbock, SerialNumber 51429, Roberta Wedge, Massiveeartha, Mattbuck, The Land, Leutha, Natkabrown and Whispertome. There are a few others whose usernames escape me at the moment. I don't think I've had any discussions with any of them outside what articles anyone is writing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guy, the question was directed at TRM and I obviously messed something up. My impression of you is someone doing your absolute best to find solutions, and I highly value that. Sorry for any misunderstanding, my concern is with this staying live by TRM grasping at defences that put others in a bad light (deflection). Hope all is well, and regret all the misconstrued statements in this miserable episode. cygnis insignis 14:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what's going with people, it seems half the project is angry with the other half and wanting to tear their heads off :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Calculated divisiveness, you can change the news and governments in that way. Kudos to that foxy cleverness, but not for the consequences; the impact on our community is, fortunately, palpable, so recognisable. cygnis insignis 14:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019

[edit]
Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019
The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Back numbers are here.
What is a systematic review?

Systematic reviews are basic building blocks of evidence-based medicine, surveys of existing literature devoted typically to a definite question that aim to bring out scientific conclusions. They are principled in a way Wikipedians can appreciate, taking a critical view of their sources.

PRISMA flow diagram for a systematic review

Ben Goldacre in 2014 wrote (link below) "[...] : the "information architecture" of evidence based medicine (if you can tolerate such a phrase) is a chaotic, ad hoc, poorly connected ecosystem of legacy projects. In some respects the whole show is still run on paper, like it's the 19th century." Is there a Wikidatan in the house? Wouldn't some machine-readable content that is structured data help?

File:Schittny, Facing East, 2011, Legacy Projects.jpg
2011 photograph by Bernard Schittny of the "Legacy Projects" group

Most likely it would, but the arcana of systematic reviews and how they add value would still need formal handling. The PRISMA standard dates from 2009, with an update started in 2018. The concerns there include the corpus of papers used: how selected and filtered? Now that Wikidata has a 20.9 million item bibliography, one can at least pose questions. Each systematic review is a tagging opportunity for a bibliography. Could that tagging be reproduced by a query, in principle? Can it even be second-guessed by a query (i.e. simulated by a protocol which translates into SPARQL)? Homing in on the arcana, do the inclusion and filtering criteria translate into metadata? At some level they must, but are these metadata explicitly expressed in the articles themselves? The answer to that is surely "no" at this point, but can TDM find them? Again "no", right now. Automatic identification doesn't just happen.

Actually these questions lack originality. It should be noted though that WP:MEDRS, the reliable sources guideline used here for health information, hinges on the assumption that the usefully systematic reviews of biomedical literature can be recognised. Its nutshell summary, normally the part of a guideline with the highest density of common sense, allows literature reviews in general validity, but WP:MEDASSESS qualifies that indication heavily. Process wonkery about systematic reviews definitely has merit.

Links
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox discretionary sanctions alert

[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate, there are active sanctions on adding verifiable information to infoboxes? cygnis insignis 03:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just removing. In other words, it should read: "adding infoxes", "removing infoxes", "collapsing infoboxes", "removing verifiable information from infoboxes". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NinjaRobotPirate, a warning about sanctions ought to be more carefully worded. These things are user created, outside of normal processes of editing and content creation, given the sensitivities of those enjoy a simple method of contributions, and their investment in interminable discussion based on CommonKnowledge, getting this vague sanctions in place was a master stroke. An incredibly divisive deviation from accepted norms that turns wikipedia into a war-game that the boys love to play. cygnis insignis 09:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the template is worded correctly, and yes adding verifiable information to infoboxes is explicitly covered by the DS. One of the issues that led to the infobox cases was that people were adding correct and verifiable, but unnecessary, information to infoboxes, leading in some cases to hugely bloated infoboxes that were longer than many articles (example, example), and editwarring when other people tried to declutter the infoboxes. As the template says, NinjaRobotPirate isn't implying any wrongdoing on your part; the template is a formality—with this specific wording mandated by arbcom—to make sure you're aware that infoboxes are one of those areas where Wikipedia's normal WP:BRD cycle doesn't apply. ‑ Iridescent 14:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

[edit]

Okay, that's it. - I can live with a superseded classification being present on this page (Vespertilionidae). While the references demonstrate that Cistugo no longer belongs in that subfamily; there's no feasible way to add an inline citation to reference the absence of an entry in the list; and all this achieves is the retaining of misleading information for purposes of personal gratification - that's not exactly an encyclopedia-breaking issue.

What I will not tolerate is a ongoing running battle with someone who acts like a petulant child in a sandbox. I am herewith putting you on notice. The next time you revert one of my edits merely from personal animosity or ownership behaviour, edit-war over MOS-conforming edits, obstruct my or anyone else's constructive work to make a WP:POINT, or call me a racist (I assume that's what "racialist" above is meant to be): I will gather up all that WP:BATTLEGROUND crap and bring it to AN/I. That usually results in a thorough examination of past edit history of all concerned, and you may not be too happy about that.

I hope the current discussion at Wikiproject Tree of Life will at least remove the common/scientific name friction point. I'd much prefer being able to work alongside (if not together with) you than feeling I have this kind of vindictiveness to contend with. Copied from Talk:Vespertilionidae#Cistugo/Myotinae. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[read read] Vespertilionidae! so interesting, I noticed it needs work earlier today. I'm busy now, but if you want me to look at that and see what I can do I will break off from the nearly extinct thing. Sorry about the phrasing, I thought that is what you people called yourselves these days and it is the polite term; I learn something else today so that is good. cygnis insignis 14:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what audience you believe you are playing to here; whatever. Yes, Vespertilionidae could certainly use some work. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

o7 I'll succeed or not return. cygnis insignis 15:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vespertilionidae

[edit]

So i'm confused. If you accept the Cistugo change, why are you reverting to a page that has dots that don't include anything? The remainder of my edits simply removed the dots, so the page looks cleaner.....Pvmoutside (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

any improvement mod to list cygnis insignis 03:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
looks great Cygnis insignis....I forgot, there was one more minor change for Vespertilionidae to consider....subfamily Antrozoinae should now be changed to tribe Antrozoini somewhere under the Vespertilioninae as that is how the article is referenced now....Miniopterinae should now be changed to family Miniopteridae.....Vespertilioninae article taxonomy can be changed as well....Pvmoutside (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regard these both as 'available names', I have mentioned this before when you change content that is referenced. The family article is currently using a reference to MSW, it is preferable to amend the information to accomodate other arrangement. If you add or remove information that does not does not match the references that is, intentional or not, confusing and ultimately, if told explicitly to stop, fraudulent. A new user would be blocked in the bat of eye for this, or continuing to not use edit summaries, you have the privileged position of being able to damage content while ignoring all suggestions to do otherwise. cygnis insignis 15:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Risstrom

[edit]

Hi, As I noted on the Drover's Wife's talk page, my concern with the material you've reverted back is that it is not actually supported by the references - e.g., they do not state that the ALP's preferencing "was considered controversial" or was the cause of Mr Risstrom's defeat (especially compared to factors such as the Greens not getting enough votes in their own right...). As this is a BLP article, can you please add references which support the content you've re-inserted? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Busy bee

[edit]

Hey : thought this may interest you : Rediscovery of the ‘extinct’ bee Hesperocolletes douglasi Michener, 1965 (Colletidae: Colletinae: Paracolletini) in Western Australia and first description of the female at https://www.threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/article/view/4610. Cheers, BhagyaMani (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does, thank you! Good news for the local ecology. I'm going to focus on Australian bees at some stage. My interest began when I noticed the cause of circular holes in the leaves of some roses, I saw one land, slice out a section, curl it up and fly off … I had to know what that was about! cygnis insignis 06:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eucalyptus - needs some oil

[edit]

Mate - thanks for your thanks. IMHO the Eucalyptus page is a mess - too many disconnected ideas in the lead, too much stuff without in-line references, too many sections. Fixing it is a daunting prospect because so many well-intentioned people have added to it over the years, so I will edit it piecemeal. Keep watching please and if you think I've overstepped the mark, give me a blast! Gderrin (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gderrin, I'm giving you an 8.5 for the pun, it has an almost poetic delicacy. And I know a little about your approach now, nobody bats an eye at OR when it looks authoritative (or they know that questioning the editor/authority is not going to go well). The art is a hodge podge, and working around others contributions triples the time it takes to get things in order. I found the southwest giants pretty daunting, even just getting some modest improvements in, but once immersed in the lit it starts to fall into place. I plan to do more eucalypts, and will keep this one in mind as I do. If you are inclined, we could build something in draft and hack away without concern; I also like communicating by editing to spare my colleagues my blather and musings and show what I mean. One thing I have been doing lately is reading every brief treatment of a taxon and see what floats up as the most notable points. Gderrin …? Oh, right. where is my bloody subgeneric arrangement to Verticordia. cygnis insignis 09:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

[edit]

Sorry, I had just read back to what looked like some pretty good ideas that seemed to have got lost in the discussion, so was rather foolishly expressing general frustration at how all the wrangling is stopping any actual improvement to the article. I didn't mean to single you out personally or anything, so apologies if it came off that way. Curdle (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curdle, I haven't given a second thought. Have a good one. cygnis insignis 15:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

[edit]

Please do not continue to remove talk page posts from another editor's talk page. I understand that you believe it contains a personal attack, however the editor has replied to the message. It is not your place to blank it or override their decision, and it is most definitely not an exemption to WP:3RR.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to stop the aggressive and insulting user from posting, the other user accepted my revision, they are game-playing and that ought to be obvious. And obviously I am not interested in their game, you are distracting me from what I am doing. cygnis insignis 20:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If "distracting" you from what you are doing is preventing you from being blocked at WP:3RN, then so be it. And you're welcome.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you busying yourself with the harassment I pointed out, or just telling me to not do what I am not doing? cygnis insignis 21:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: I would like to revive this discussion, when it is convenient for you. cygnis insignis 15:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cygnis insignis. The intent of my message was to request a stop of the reverting in hopes that you could avoid a trip to the 3RR noticeboard and a potential block over such a minor issue. As the reverting did indeed stop, I'm not sure what more there is to discuss?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is accurate, you have muddled up the order of events and I'm happy to create a timeline if you doubt it. I was very conscious of 3RR, the bullying tactics of this self-righteous account had seen the harassed user blocked for 3RR. The user has been insulting and accusing others of flat out lying, and getting user blocked in a tag team edit war was taken as an endorsement of their tendentious position (a victory in battle). As a consequence there has been numerous misrepresentation that the user is not inhibited about advancing, so convinced of their truth that anyone objecting is an enemy. This is toxic in our community, and you are reiterating an unsubstantiated accusation whatever favour you did by not blocking me.
So, my first query is this: How did this come to your attention? cygnis insignis 16:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted three times; a partial revert here, here and here. None of the reverts are exemptions of 3RR regardless of how justified you believe you were in making them, and if you had reverted again it is very likely there would have been a report made at 3RN. The edits came to my attention as they were highlighted in two of the filters I use to monitor for socking. I have no interest in getting dragged in to whatever drama you have found yourself in.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The user was okay with it, the second and third reverts were with the user Merphee's consent and that is what they restored when the edit warrior (who I assume you also warned) thought to contradict my comment at a hot button topic at AN/I (then retracted when they saw what they were doing). I didn't ask you to comment, or give me a warning for something I did not do, consider consequences of your driveby 'don't want to get involved' actions even if you don't care to admit you got it wrong and gave tacit approval to a seriously disruptive and insulting thug. cygnis insignis 18:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
struck, no warning on the other user's page about same matter. cygnis insignis 18:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I got wrong was making an effort to help ensure you didn't get caught up in a 3RR block based on emotion instead of policy. I have made a mental note not to expend the energy in the future. I'm not watching this page and will not be replying further.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. cygnis insignis 20:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than invoking WP:DENY, why not check for yourself if Merphee is telling the truth when they say that they'll ask me "one more time" to get off their talk page? It won't take long - I have only touched their talk page on two occasions and the page as a whole does not have a huge history. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was distracted by something, but I'm ready to discuss the shocking turn of events and outrageous behaviour now. Shall we do that here? cygnis insignis 10:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 22 – 28 March 2019

[edit]
Facto Post – Issue 22 – 28 March 2019
The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Back numbers are here.
When in the cloud, do as the APIs do

Half a century ago, it was the era of the mainframe computer, with its air-conditioned room, twitching tape-drives, and appearance in the title of a spy novel Billion-Dollar Brain then made into a Hollywood film. Now we have the cloud, with server farms and the client–server model as quotidian: this text is being typed on a Chromebook.

File:Cloud-API-Logo.svg
Logo of Cloud API on Google Cloud Platform

The term Applications Programming Interface or API is 50 years old, and refers to a type of software library as well as the interface to its use. While a compiler is what you need to get high-level code executed by a mainframe, an API out in the cloud somewhere offers a chance to perform operations on a remote server. For example, the multifarious bots active on Wikipedia have owners who exploit the MediaWiki API.

APIs (called RESTful) that allow for the GET HTTP request are fundamental for what could colloquially be called "moving data around the Web"; from which Wikidata benefits 24/7. So the fact that the Wikidata SPARQL endpoint at query.wikidata.org has a RESTful API means that, in lay terms, Wikidata content can be GOT from it. The programming involved, besides the SPARQL language, could be in Python, younger by a few months than the Web.

Magic words, such as occur in fantasy stories, are wishful (rather than RESTful) solutions to gaining access. You may need to be a linguist to enter Ali Baba's cave or the western door of Moria (French in the case of "Open Sesame", in fact, and Sindarin being the respective languages). Talking to an API requires a bigger toolkit, which first means you have to recognise the tools in terms of what they can do. On the way to the wikt:impactful or polymathic modern handling of facts, one must perhaps take only tactful notice of tech's endemic problem with documentation, and absorb the insightful point that the code in APIs does articulate the customary procedures now in place on the cloud for getting information. As Owl explained to Winnie-the-Pooh, it tells you The Thing to Do.

Links
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing Broad-faced potoroo

[edit]

Hey there! I was copy editing the article that you made. I would like to ask for clarification on the fourth and fifth paragraphs in the Taxonomy section, and what you meant to say in each one. Ravquaza (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I will have a look. cygnis insignis 13:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravquaza: Para 4, Finlayson wrote about some bones he found in South Australia, a thousand miles betond its known range. He thought there might be a new species, finding enough differences between the animal and the information he had on the species so he gave it a new name. However, Finlayson says (with proper caution) his comparison was limited and further study might show the characteristics are just variations within a species, the later conclusion is there is not enough evidence to separate it to a new species, so what he and anyone else called Potorous morgani is classified as Potorous platyops. This is me trying to say what I hope you asking about. Para 5 is fairly straightforward, the species was called moda and this was recorded as regional variants and different spelling. Other common names have been applied, for what its worth, no one had seen any for 150 years, but authorities have reapplied the name used when it was still common. If you can untangle this reply, and the content, your efforts towards improving the article would be appreciated.. cygnis insignis 14:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again.

Thank you for clarifying that. However, I have another question.

I was copy editing the Ecology section, and I need some clarification on information. In the third paragraph, if I read it correctly, you talked about the reamins that were found in Bremer Bay that were found in the sand dune, but then you start seem to start talking about the same set of bones, which you wrote were found near Hunter River. Are you talking about 2 different remains, or the same one? Ravquaza (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse the mysteries, there was something I was unclear about so I will have another look tomorrow. Cheers, cygnis insignis 16:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again @Ravquaza:. I see where the confusion arose, two different collections sixty years apart; there was something else I wanted to add about the few specimens and left a muddle when I changed my mind. I put in the date to set it apart, see if it that is improvable if you wish. Note also that any reference supports previous sentences, so the 1971 paper was at the end of the next sentence (with a ref that cited the paper). Cheers again, cygnis insignis 19:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again. I have mostly completed the copyedit of the article. I think you might want to take a quick look at it, just to make sure everything is expressed correctly. It would also be good if you could resolve the clarification issue between the first paragraph and the Description paragraph. Ravquaza (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, very good of you to help, I will get out the sources and see where it is. I did not know what with the precise and untidy looking figure, and the contradiction is a bit glaring, but I thought to round up a few millimetres for the intro was okay. cygnis insignis 18:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear! Just let me know on my talk page when you've updated the article, and I can check for grammatical errors. Ravquaza (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Hi Cygnis isignis and @Ravquaza:; are you both happy with the copy-edit? I'd like to either archive this request as done or re-open the request for other editors to work on, in which case Ravquaza will be credited as co-copy-editor. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Baffle gab1978: There was a couple of concerns, a widowed ref and formatting, but I haven't had a closer look to see where the new account has made improvements or needs guidance. This is a task for another day, more complex than previous requests of the guild, but I don't object to the copyedit request being closed. cygnis insignis 04:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, Cygnis; Ravquaza has done what I'd consider a good copy-edit diff. Although there's no deadline, we like to get requests processed and archived in a reasonable time. I'll wait a few more days for Ravquaza to reply, but I'm happy to close this request; you're welcome to re-request later. I've hidden the reference named "Finlayson1959", which isn't called in the article and was throwing an error on the page; feel free to un-hide if necessary. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing how cygnis seems okay with the copy-edit, I will go and mark the article as completed right now. Ravquaza (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravquaza: thanks. cygnis insignis 01:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AVH maps

[edit]

Hello Cygnis insignis,

Re. your edit to Boronia alata, could you add a link (here will do) to "AVH map per discussions at reliable sources noticeboard". I can't for the life of me find it. Many thanks. Gderrin (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was archived out of process. I have had extensive discussion with the user, prompted when the distribution range of Macrozamia riedlei was displayed as a population near Sydney. The hours of research I did was wrong, according to the user, because the map showed otherwise: User_talk:MargaretRDonald#Distribution_maps. Much of the discussion had been blanked by the account, and I am beyond exhausted in talking about it, the account is the only one of the opinion that a Southwest endemic occurs in NSW, Be aware that I am opposed to these contributions, and placed a warning that I would assembling evidence of disruption, but redirecting efforts to properly sourced facts for the moment. I will undo the edit. cygnis insignis 01:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

connections

[edit]

- all part of the milleau that I have had as part of a life that seems so far away... sigh - so its almost coi, I was sure charlie had a son who followed him in the same area? JarrahTree 13:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just twigged to that, the output of WA workers is more remarkable for their available resources. I don't think I ever met him, and would hesitate adding even a brief bio on someone I had or would meet (its weird when I have, which is why I don't fill every redlink I create). cygnis insignis 13:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The son (I assumed) contributed to the linked obituary, which I didn't read through. cygnis insignis 13:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard him talk on jasper where or when I cannot remember. btw yhm. JarrahTree 14:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
His son, Joe, and he completed their PhD around the same time (2001), and the young researcher in the lab coat of the picture you linked was their supervisor! cygnis insignis 14:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Editor's Barnstar
Because working in the wings is as important as being centre stage. Keep up the Good Work! ——SerialNumber54129 13:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 23 – 30 April 2019

[edit]
Facto Post – Issue 23 – 30 April 2019
The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Back numbers are here.
Completely clouded?
Cloud computing logo

Talk of cloud computing draws a veil over hardware, but also, less obviously but more importantly, obscures such intellectual distinction as matters most in its use. Wikidata begins to allow tasks to be undertaken that were out of easy reach. The facility should not be taken as the real point.

Coming in from another angle, the "executive decision" is more glamorous; but the "administrative decision" should be admired for its command of facts. Think of the attitudes ad fontes, so prevalent here on Wikipedia as "can you give me a source for that?", and being prepared to deal with complicated analyses into specified subcases. Impatience expressed as a disdain for such pedantry is quite understandable, but neither dirty data nor false dichotomies are at all good to have around.

Issue 13 and Issue 21, respectively on WP:MEDRS and systematic reviews, talk about biomedical literature and computing tasks that would be of higher quality if they could be made more "administrative". For example, it is desirable that the decisions involved be consistent, explicable, and reproducible by non-experts from specified inputs.

What gets clouded out is not impossibly hard to understand. You do need to put together the insights of functional programming, which is a doctrinaire and purist but clearcut approach, with the practicality of office software. Loopless computation can be conceived of as a seamless forward march of spreadsheet columns, each determined by the content of previous ones. Very well: to do a backward audit, when now we are talking about Wikidata, we rely on integrity of data and its scrupulous sourcing: and clearcut case analyses. The MEDRS example forces attention on purge attempts such as Beall's list.

Links
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

[edit]

I am not used to using they as a gender pronoun, and so am having to learn to not use it. Unlike request (to say) not call uses rude names this actually requires effort on my part. There are going to be (therefore) the odd slip up.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My deepest sympathies, hope you are okay? /s Your prevarications and interjections on this 'issue' are the very thing you are touting and prosecuting, so should not be that hard to remember. Seriuz, you are chancing your hand coming here and you might consider not doing that again. I'm being ever so gentle now. cygnis insignis 12:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me do we have an IBAN I cannot remember? As to the rest, its been a week, hardly enough time to get used to using something that in fact (if used "correctly") makes for bad grammar. That is part of the problem, sentence flow would use "She is", rather they "they is", it is not simply a case of using a different word. Years of sentence structure, syntax and contextualization have to be unlearned, hard to do in a week.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You ought to have spent years learning how to address content, not contributors, is that the habit that needs breaking? If it is required, the username is more specific and helpful in a community of thousands, an individual's obsession with another user is not always immediately obvious. cygnis insignis 12:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know how to address content, but they is not content they is a user. As to the rest, we have been interacting for week, that is to say me and Fae, (after they launched an unprovoked attack against me (about the same time I found out how they wish to be addressed), and have continued to bang on about it) who therefore is obsessed with who? But I have had my say, I have no idea who you are or why you have also decided to pick a fight with me. I will close by asking to be treated with the same level of consideration and respect you expect me to show others.Slatersteven (talk)

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter

[edit]
April 2019—Issue 001


Tree of Life


Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

Sturgeon nominated by Atsme, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
Eastern brown snake nominated by Casliber, reviewed by Opabinia regalis
Cactus wren nominated by CaptainEek, reviewed by Sainsf
Bidni nominated by PolluxWorld, reviewed by DepressedPer
Crinoid nominated by Cwmhiraeth, reviewed by Chiswick Chap

Newly nominated FAs

Cretoxyrhina nominated by Macrophyseter
Eastern brown snake nominated by Casliber



WikiCup heating up

Tree of Life editors are making a respectable showing in this year's WikiCup, with three regular editors advancing to the third round. Overall winner from 2016, Casliber, topped the scoreboard in points for round 2, getting a nice bonus for bringing Black mamba to FA. Enwebb continues to favor things remotely related to bats, bringing Stellaluna to GA. Plants editor Guettarda also advanced to round 3 with several plant-related DYKs.

Wikipedia page views track animal migrations, flowers blooming

A March 2019 paper in PLOS Biology found that Wikipedia page views vary seasonally for species. With a dataset of 31,751 articles about species, the authors found that roughly a quarter of all articles had significant seasonal variations in page views on at least one language version of Wikipedia. They examined 245 language versions. Page views also peaked with cultural events, such as views of the Great white shark article during Shark Week or Turkey during Thanksgiving.

Seasonal variation in page views among nine bird species
Did you know ... that Tree of Life editors bring content to the front page nearly every day?

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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019

[edit]
Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019
Text mining display of noun phrases from the US Presidential Election 2012
The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Back numbers are here.
Semantic Web and TDM – a ContentMine view

Two dozen issues, and this may be the last, a valediction at least for a while.

It's time for a two-year summation of ContentMine projects involving TDM (text and data mining).

Wikidata and now Structured Data on Commons represent the overlap of Wikimedia with the Semantic Web. This common ground is helping to convert an engineering concept into a movement. TDM generally has little enough connection with the Semantic Web, being instead in the orbit of machine learning which is no respecter of the semantic. Don't break a taboo by asking bots "and what do you mean by that?"

The ScienceSource project innovates in TDM, by storing its text mining results in a Wikibase site. It strives for compliance of its fact mining, on drug treatments of diseases, with an automated form of the relevant Wikipedia referencing guideline MEDRS. Where WikiFactMine set up an API for reuse of its results, ScienceSource has a SPARQL query service, with look-and-feel exactly that of Wikidata's at query.wikidata.org. It also now has a custom front end, and its content can be federated, in other words used in data mashups: it is one of over 50 sites that can federate with Wikidata.

The human factor comes to bear through the front end, which combines a link to the HTML version of a paper, text mining results organised in drug and disease columns, and a SPARQL display of nearby drug and disease terms. Much software to develop and explain, so little time! Rather than telling the tale, Facto Post brings you ScienceSource links, starting from the how-to video, lower right.

ScienceSourceReview, introductory video: but you need run it from the original upload file on Commons
Links for participation

The review tool requires a log in on sciencesource.wmflabs.org, and an OAuth permission (bottom of a review page) to operate. It can be used in simple and more advanced workflows. Examples of queries for the latter are at d:Wikidata_talk:ScienceSource project/Queries#SS_disease_list and d:Wikidata_talk:ScienceSource_project/Queries#NDF-RT issue.

Please be aware that this is a research project in development, and may have outages for planned maintenance. That will apply for the next few days, at least. The ScienceSource wiki main page carries information on practical matters. Email is not enabled on the wiki: use site mail here to Charles Matthews in case of difficulty, or if you need support. Further explanatory videos will be put into commons:Category:ContentMine videos.

If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Confession and adieu ~ UnicornBlood2018

[edit]
Actually for the last two messages on discussion board and on his talk page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/897746478

I appreciate your need to be fair but I can't lie. That was actually honestly me tho I didn't pretend to be someone else. I had identified myself explicitly.


I am still not that Queenslander but I did leave a message on his talk page and on the administration board. why not? By their logic and unjust ruling, i am screwed either way. I follow the rules, i get banned. This way, at least i go out my way.. I really was falsely accused of being the Queenslander which effectively meant I'm screwed. They had reset my 6 months offer but i STILL can't control other people. Eventually they will point at the Queenslander again or another person as being me and I am too tired of that bs. So let them nip it in the bud and save me the headache from their imperfect system. I'm not going to wait 5 months and suddenly they wrongfully accuse another random person on me to kill my appeal. .Rip it off like a Band-Aid i say.

And to somewhat prove That I am UnicornBlood2018. Here is the second email I sent to Sandstein through the Wikipedia messaging system. Because he received it, he can verify it as authentic or i give permission to wikipedia staff to verify it. And it is authentic.

I told him and reassured him on my second that I wasn't going to hassle him but to ask him questions and for him to apologise to the Queenslander because I know that poor man has been wronged. I got email access blocked right afterwards.

Original Message --------

On 16 May 2019, 22:02, Wikipedia < wiki@wikimedia.org> wrote:

Also this is my final message.

But you owe the Queenslander an apology. You accused him based on what? A hunch or a guess? If you were really smart l, you would be able to see it objectively.

He was just another guy who also did his research and realised falun gong article is messed up. His ip address is far from Sydney where i am at. You think only American edit Wikipedia. Aussie editors also edit Wikipedia too.

You are blocking based on your own guess..that is a misuse of editor privelege to defame others so casually.

-- This email was sent by user "Unicornblood2018" on the English Wikipedia to user "Sandstein". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents

But unlike the editors with beef on narrative, i called them out for censoring and twisting information. Little I wrote of what i wanted added in to Wiki, was not backed by sources. THE other editors like marvib 2009 responded not by discussing it but giving me political soapboxing of ccp. And i am not the only one nor the only former member wanting to end their sweeping under the rug dirt. And who exactly in Wikipedia even succeeded in sanctioning such a consensus where the western time interview of alien's are not allowed on fg page?? Basically fg public relations would love that wiki approved sanction where there is no more discussions. 😍 SMH.

Shown my 2 evidence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/897599904

https://medium.com/@Ben_D_Hurley/-10677166298b

Tell the others to have a good day from me and continue the article be inhibited away from reality. Cus I give up on UnicornBlood2018 and accept my ban. This is my final message as a former fg member.

But thanks for being a decent editor. UnicornBlood2018 🙂

P.S sorry for the noob editing. I am new to wikipedia relatively and never really read and studied how to do things. To be fair, it does seem to have a very steep learning curve required and I regret not taking the time to properly learn it. Otherwise I would not be in this mess if I was an informed wiki editor. I'm not even an emotional person irl but FG hits that nerve and I made the mistake of raging battleground rants after other editors refused to discuss what i said but ONLY kept giving me political soapboxing of CCP.

Proof of that. Read "RFC on lead" section on link below.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_41


The first sock puppetry accusation against me for being the Queenslander was wrong and only the Queenslander and myself know that fully as fact unfortunately. Others will find it too hard to believe and i guess that's bad luck. I mean the Queenslander literally talks about unicorns. What are the odds of that? Even i start to realise how much of a bad coincidence but it really is a coincidence.

I do apologise for being a sh*tty wiki editor.. I could have handled it better if i didn't let myself get too aggressive. After being unblocked, I really was sincerely commited to not repeating that mistake but now it does not matter anymore. 120.17.229.164 (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I was just reading through all that, but appreciate the message. Self awareness is not a very common attribute in editors at wikipedia, so maybe this site is not for you :–) I ought to have made it clear that I recognised there was improvements to the article in the comments, yet I was prepared to flick an ear if the discussion strayed from content to contributors on an article in need of improvement. This would not be the first example of any user, experienced or novice, neglecting the golden rule that aligns us to the purpose of the site. Someone will come along one day and look at the page, recognise the potential for a proper article, and set about doing that … yet another Spartacus. cygnis insignis 07:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since We're Here

[edit]

Since you've been working hard to expand Microleo, I figure I might as well update my picture of the beastie ahead of schedule so that we wouldn't need to re-review it twice. Would you want to see it in a more dynamic situation, like it eating an agamid or stick insect, or change the fur pattern? That is, in addition to any anatomy fixes?--Mr Fink (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Apokryltaros: oops. Excuse that, I did not know if it was reviewed, I will put it back. You may have seen a reference image at UNSW press release, I'm guessing they included as much information as they felt comfortable portraying. I'm certainly not in a position to critique user created content. What I could do is gather some guesses at the tree species it apparently lived in, more verdant than the blue-grey shades of contemporary Australian flora. cygnis insignis 18:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was the reference I used.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I don't know what is going on with the pattern in Schouten's illustration, I had thought striping was a dasyurid characteristic, but I presume that breaking up one's outline is good value in most predators. Useless guessing is all I have, don't be shy if I trip up in main space, and cheers! cygnis insignis 20:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Schouten revert

[edit]
Peter Schouten, palaeo-artist

Your revert of my edit results in the link going via a redirect..... I perceive that to be incorrect. Why do you think that is best??? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ariconte: see WP:NOTBROKEN. Replacing a wikilink that is a redirect and is just a different spelling or formatting of the article name is acceptable (in my view). But replacing a wikilink that is a redirect when a different concept is involved is another matter. At present, the species Nimbadon lavarackorum happens to redirect to the genus Nimbadon, but this might change in future – if several well-described species were placed in the genus, separate articles for the genus and species could be justified. It shouldn't be necessary to go back and change wikilinks if this happens; the appropriate wikilink is the one that fits the context, whether or not it's a redirect. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for the comments. I couldn't think of the link, and appreciate that it is not obvious why some redirects are conserved. Peter sums it up very well. cygnis insignis 16:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the explanation. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Peter is very good at that. Regards to you too. cygnis insignis 17:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Canning Basin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gogo fish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PA

[edit]

Please read wp:npa if you keep on using ad hominies to dismiss arguments you may well end up with some kind of sanction. Nor does it win you any arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read that link.Is this is persistent concern with you, detecting personal attacks when someone disagrees? Have you been wronged somewhere and that was not resolved to your satisfaction? That is the impression I get, I can provide some solutions if you wish. I hope there is an enjoyable aspect to your activities here as well. And I really don't mind what you believe? Don't be insulted if I think belief has nothing to do with editing, or however you have turned this around to make it about you. cygnis insignis 19:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should read it, it is a policy violation of which can lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans. The solution is you comment on content, not on the contributor. It is not a question of being wronged, it is a question of asking people to behave in a respectful of civil manner irrespective of their beliefs (however they seek to conceal their real intent). I am asking you to obey our policies, no more no less.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with policy, I've said what irks me, I've reflected on my behaviour. So why are you are here, what is this to do with content improvement. There is a limit to how much value in being personally affronted by my questioning of your stated beliefs as it relates to content improvement, and said the little I know of your comments is some quickfire reactions at AN/I and elsewhere and that seems to swing around a fascination with PAs. The personal attacks you appear to be ignoring are what prompted my assertions, guilt by association for an unprovable assertion "it is pseudoscience" and other policies don't apply. I think a careful interpretation of BLP has a bearing on this. Please don't be so judgemental or assume that I need to be harried for some higher purpose and truth you hold dear, dear. cygnis insignis 09:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Our polices on PA's only apply to how we treat users, not off wiki personages. As to the rest, again you do not get to slag off other users or question their motivations as a tactic to try and win a dispute. This is my last word on this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: You are wrong, I believe, and I suspect the interjections from your account are largely redundant. What else are you interested in here, aside from admonishing other users, as a means to improving content? I ask this because I value positive contributions and civil interactions, are you going about cheering and helping with that as well? I honestly don't know, but I sense something is awry and is obstructing you from doing that. IF you want an honest opinion from a well intentioned user, I can suggest some model contributors to emulate, or return here any time and ask me what I think. I prefer to be honest, and my opinion is you are singularly focused on this point to discourage me from challenging a misuse of policy and guidelines, and as you say, that is what you are accusing me of. This is what I have already reflected, resolving these matters to one's own satisfaction is a consistent process that always has potential for improvement. You need not remind me of that again. cygnis insignis 11:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

[edit]

Do not ever edit my sandbox again, it is not a message board, and I find it odd you even are aware of what happened there.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[I was hoping this was something about bats] It was a way of commenting, reverted and unobstrusive, utterly harmless unless you want it otherwise. I hoped to keep a line of communication open with you, but it seems obvious you would interpret that as a PA with the benefit of hindsight. And that was not odd at all, seeing you assembling your case, it appeared as I hovered my cursor over your contributions, curious because you never answer my questions about that. I thought you might be writing an article and got enthusiastic about seeing what was coming. What I found was uninteresting, it was about me :( Anyway, hope the information was useful, let me know what you have appeared to have already decided. Have a good one, whatever you are doing today. cygnis insignis 17:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019 Tree of Life Newsletter

[edit]
May 2019—Issue 002


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

Cretoxyrhina by Macrophyseter
Bramble Cay melomys by The lorax/Vanamonde93, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
Chimpanzee by LittleJerry/Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Tim riley
Spinophorosaurus by FunkMonk/Jens Lallensack, reviewed by Enwebb
Trachodon mummy by Jens Lallensack, reviewed by Gog the Mild
Megabat by Enwebb, reviewed by Jens Lallensack

Newly nominated FAs

Spinophorosaurus by FunkMonk/Jens Lallensack
Trachodon mummy by Jens Lallensack




Fundamental changes being discussed at WikiProject Biology

On 23 May, user Prometheus720 created a talk page post, "Revamp of Wikiproject Biology--Who is In?". In the days since, WP:BIOL has been bustling with activity, with over a dozen editors weighing in on this discussion, as well as several others that have subsequently spawned. An undercurrent of thought is that WP:BIOL has too many subprojects, preventing editors from easily interacting and stopping a "critical mass" of collaboration and engagement. Many mergers and consolidations of subprojects have been tentatively listed, with a consolidation of WikiProjects Genetics + Molecular and Cell Biology + Computational Biology + Biophysics currently in discussion. Other ideas being aired include updating old participants lists, redesigning project pages to make them more user-friendly, and clearly identifying long- and short-term goals.

Editor Spotlight: These editors want you to write about dinosaurs

Editors FunkMonk and Jens Lallensack had a very fruitful month, collaborating to bring two dinosaur articles to GA and then nominating them both for FA. They graciously decided to answer some questions for the first ToL Editor Spotlight, giving insight to their successful collaborations, explaining why you should collaborate with them, and also sharing some tidbits about their lives off-Wikipedia.

1) Enwebb: How long have you two been collaborating on articles?

  • Jens Lallensack: I started in the German Wikipedia in 2005 but switched to the English Wikipedia because of its very active dinosaur project. My first major collaboration with FunkMonk was on Heterodontosaurus in 2015.
  • FunkMonk: Yeah, we had interacted already on talk pages and through reviewing each other's articles, and at some point I was thinking of expanding Heterodontosaurus, and realised Jens had already written the German Wikipedia version, so it seemed natural to work together on the English one. Our latest collaboration was Spinophorosaurus, where by another coincidence, I had wanted to work on that article for the WP:Four Award, and it turned out that Jens had a German book about the expedition that found the dinosaur, which I wouldn't have been able to utilise with my meagre German skills. Between those, we also worked on Brachiosaurus, a wider Dinosaur Project collaboration between several editors.

2) Enwebb: Why dinosaurs?

  • JL: Because of the huge public interest in them. But dinosaurs are also highly interesting from a scientific point of view: key evolutionary innovations emerged within this group, such as warm-bloodedness, gigantism, and flight. Dinosaur research is, together with the study of fossil human remains, the most active field in paleontology. New scientific techniques and approaches tend to get developed within this field. Dinosaur research became increasingly interdisciplinary, and now does not only rely on various fields of biology and geology, but also on chemistry and physics, among others. Dinosaurs are therefore ideal to convey scientific methodology to the general public.
  • FM: As outlined above, dinosaurs have been described as a "gateway to science"; if you learn about dinosaurs, you will most likely also learn about a lot of scientific fields you would not necessarily be exposed to otherwise. On a more personal level, having grown up with and being influenced by various dinosaur media, it feels pretty cool to help spread knowledge about these animals, closest we can get to keeping them alive.

3) Enwebb: Why should other editors join you in writing articles related to paleontology? Are you looking to attract new editors, or draw in experienced editors from other areas of Wikipedia?

  • JL: Because we are a small but active and helpful community. Our Dinosaur collaboration, one of the very few active open collaborations in Wikipedia, makes high-level writing on important articles easier and more fun. Our collaboration is especially open to editors without prior experience in high-level writing. But we do not only write articles: several WikiProject Dinosaur participants are artists who do a great job illustrating the articles, and maintain an extensive and very active image review system. In fact, a number of later authors started with contributing images.
  • FM: Anyone who is interested in palaeontology is welcome to try writing articles, and we would be more than willing to help. I find that the more people that work on articles simultaneously with me, the more motivation I get to write myself. I am also one of those editors who started out contributing dinosaur illustrations and making minor edits, and only began writing after some years. But when I got to it, it wasn't as intimidating as I had feared, and I've learned a lot in the process. For example anatomy; if you know dinosaur anatomy, you have a very good framework for understanding the anatomy of other tetrapod animals, including humans.

4) Enwebb: Between the two of you, you have over 300 GA reviews. FunkMonk, you have over 250 of those. What keeps you coming back to review more articles?

  • FM: One of the main reasons I review GANs is to learn more about subjects that seem interesting (or which I would perhaps not come across otherwise). There are of course also more practical reasons, such as helping an article on its way towards FAC, to reduce the GAN backlog, and to "pay back" when I have a nomination up myself. It feels like a win-win situation where I can be entertained by interesting info, while also helping other editors get their nominations in shape, and we'll end up with an article that hopefully serves to educate a lot of people (the greater good).
  • JL: Because I enjoy reading Wikipedia articles and like to learn new things. In addition, reviews give me the opportunity to have direct contact with the authors, and help them to make their articles even better. This is quite rewarding for me personally. But I also review because I consider our GA and FA system to be of fundamental importance for Wikipedia. When I started editing Wikipedia (the German version), the article promotion reviews motivated me and improved my writing skills a lot. Submitting an article for review requires one to get serious and take additional steps to bring the article to the best quality possible. GAs and FAs are also a good starting point for readers, and may motivate them to become authors themselves.

5) Enwebb: What are your editing preferences? Any scripts or gadgets you find invaluable?

  • FM: One script that everyone should know about is the duplink highlight tool. It will show duplinks within the intro and body of a given article separately, and it seems a lot of people still don't know about it, though they are happy when introduced to it. I really liked the citationbot too (since citation consistency is a boring chore to me), but it seems to be blocked at the moment due to some technical issues.
  • JL: I often review using the Wikipedia Beta app on my smartphone, as it allows me to read without needing to sit in front of the PC. For writing, I find the reference management software Zotero invaluable, as it generates citation templates automatically, saving a lot of time.
    • Editor's note: I downloaded Zotero and tried it for the first time and think it is a very useful tool. More here.

6) Enwebb: What would surprise the ToL community to learn about your life off-wiki?

  • FM: Perhaps that I have no background in natural history/science, but work with animation and games. But fascination with and knowledge of nature and animals is actually very helpful when designing and animating characters and creatures, so it isn't that far off, and I can actually use some of the things I learn while writing here for my work (when I wrote the Dromaeosauroides article, it was partially to learn more about the animal for a design-school project).
  • JL: That I am actually doing research on dinosaurs. Though I avoid writing about topics I publish research on, my Wikipedia work helps me to keep a good general overview over the field, and quite regularly I can use what I learned while writing for Wikipedia for my research.

Get in touch with these editors regarding collaboration at WikiProject Dinosaurs!

Marine life continues to dominate ToL DYKs

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.

Sent by DannyS712 (talk) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 03:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of William Cussans for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William Cussans is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Cussans 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.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cenobialis (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moving comments

[edit]

You should not move other users comments that are replies to yours (as you did here [[1]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I explained why I did that, and it is perfectly acceptable re-factor threads to facilitate discussion, which you were interjecting we should not be having. I was ignoring that command, because I didn't think it was helping to smooth out the unencyclopaedic presentation of content. Okay? I know what I would prefer, so do you, barking orders at people is not building content, announcing to others what they should do seems to be all you do. That doesn't seem enjoyable, it has made me think there is something unresolved and obstructing your ability to contribute, please let me help with that if I can. cygnis insignis 17:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You explained it, where? You explained why you created the subjection, not whey you then moved one of my comments (in effect), by moving one of yours. Ohh and it is not OK to do it (see WP:TPO WP:REDACT, you moved my comments "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.") by moving my comments you changed what they had replied to.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I moved it, you were disrupting the discussion by claiming it was not okay to, paradoxically, have the discussion. When I had ignored the interjection, as I tried to do, you started demanding I respond to you and further disrupt the discussion. I don't think that is okay, obviously.cygnis insignis 17:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You moved it...because it had been responded to, and you fail to see how they breached policy (and after you had continued to respond to me)? Fair enough, I am telling you such things are against policy. If you choose to ignore that, fine, but I would advise you not to do it again, if you do it to me again I will report it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was the only other respondent. Why did you ignore the personal attack on me, being accused of fraudulent referencing was upsetting and you are so gung-ho on that subject? Seems partisan, but I am the wounded party, so probably bias on the point. What are you hoping to achieve? cygnis insignis 17:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are PAs okay when your careful analysis of the above AfD concluded the same thing as the accuser. Is there some policy on that, that absolves you there but compels you to admonish me. Or is that part of your process? cygnis insignis 17:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Add a ping @Slatersteven:, and reping @Slatersteven: when that did not work 17:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about that AFD, and I fail to see what relevance it has. Also read wp:NPA. This is my last response here (on this topic), the next time (as I said) you move a comment of mine I will report it, what anyone else does elsewhere is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that you decide what is and is not relevant, as it suits you do. Do you actually know about the aspects of wikipedia concerned with content creation: that is why we are here, and it expressed implicitly and explicitly in policy and guidance of the site. It is not to interfere with others doing something positive or lurk around noticeboards settling some score with a person who disagreed with you once over something you are passionate about, that is gaming, not editing, but I have taken the time to discuss this with you anyway. Please take that into consideration, the site is not about you projecting some authority over other volunteers, yet I have been very patient because I know that users lose sight of the site's purpose when they have been on the receiving end. I am doing bats now, so will answer any further message tomorrow, I don't see how that could be interfering with anybody and feel comfortably ignoring your interference with what I am doing. cygnis insignis 18:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality assessment of Hipposideros winsburyorum

[edit]

@Cygnis insignis: As the author of the article Hipposideros winsburyorum, you are not allowed to change the quality assessment on the talk page. It is quite clear that this is a stub article; however, if you wish to have it re-evaluated, please do so through the usual avenues. See here for more information on lodging a request for another assessment at WikiProject Australia. In its current state, the article fits the criteria descriptors of Stub Class, or at the most, Start Class, as described here. ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not allowed, what gives you that idea? cygnis insignis 02:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to user space

[edit]

Redirects are for the redirection of searches to the appropriate article, they are not there to create routs to draft articles.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism-

[edit]

Please read WP:PLAGFORM.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice (belated...)

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. You weren't notified of the ANI discussion that was created involving your page move as you should have been. I've gone ahead and added this notification so that you're officially notified. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion and William Cussans

[edit]

Since there's an AFD discussion currently open regarding this article, I've moved it back to the mainspace and back to its original title. You are welcome, however, to make a copy of the article's text and then create a page within your user space so that you have it (I assume that this is what you were trying to accomplish by moving the article to your user space?), so that the content isn't lost to you if it's deleted. Alternatively, I'm happy to provide you with a copy of the article's text after its deleted (if you need it) so that you can edit it from there and make improvements.

One thing I should remind you about is the fact that notability doesn't take into account the quality, length, or the text or content present within the article itself; simply expanding the article's text and making improvements and adding content to it won't resolve issues that are found with the subject's notability. Notability is determined by researching and performing searches about the article subject using various engines and sources, and locating the amount of sources and references that are available, and considered to be reliable, secondary, independent of the article subject, and that provide primary coverage of the article subject. The amount of sources that exist and meet these requirements determines the article subject's notability and whether or not it deserves its own article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's guidelines on the notability of people will provide you with more information.

I know that you're not a new user by any means, and I hope that my explanation about notability doesn't insult or frustrate you, or imply that I'm questioning your knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That's absolutely not the case. :-) I'm simply adding this information so that nothing is left on the table and into question, and all of my bases are covered. :-) I just saw the move you made to the article (after reading the ANI discussion filed), and thought that your action may be an attempt to try and "fix the article" so that you can move it back to the mainspace later. Not only is doing that not going to ultimately work (given the explanation I gave above), but it will most likely be seen as disruptive and an attempt to get around proper process (like AFD). So let's leave the actual article location alone so that you stay outta trouble, okay? If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know (ping me in your responses here so that I'm notified) and I'll be happy to help you. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Thank you at least for addressing me in a civil manner, and not presuming I am utterly clueless. I would appreciate if someone addressed the slanderous comments in that AfD, and would have preferred it was not perpetuated. This is not about the content. cygnis insignis 15:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I'm happy to see that you understand what I was trying to do. :-) I'm happy to take a look at the AFD discussion if there are issues with civility and baseless accusations there. Can you provide me with diffs of edits that you're referring to specifically that I need to look at? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer not to play into this more, but if I made an assertion then I ought to back up that, then I will do that, but don't want to get mired in the online gaming that gives others satisfaction. I enjoy creating content, I will try to get back to doing something useful. Regards, cygnis insignis 15:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's completely understandable. If you change your mind, please do not hesitate to message me on my user talk page or email me, and I'll be happy to look into it. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshwah: you have a delicate touch with messages, quite admirable and neutrally worded. The offer was enough, perhaps some of them might find something to love instead of splaying out their own torment and grudges like a discord channel. If you like William Blake you should read the biography by the same author, it is more charming than my quote and one of my favourites. cygnis insignis 17:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the very kind words. Good luck and happy editing to you. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Ekaltadeta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Mike Archer
Fawn leaf-nosed bat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Henry Richter

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DPL bot: I AM SO HAPPY FOR YOUR MESSAGE, ANOTHER REASON WHY WE HUMANS WELCOME THE SINGULARITY.

Where the would-be comma?

[edit]

Hi cygnis. You wrote: "I might have put a comma after 'categories', to emphasise that style of oration and avoid that misread." This was in relation to my: "There are numerous question marks in regard to your prose, your inventing grammatical categories and then claiming they require commas and so forth". I had another look at this, again supposing the other person was right, but then, also again, I saw that what I had written was as intended. The three elements are "your prose", "your inventing grammatical categories and then claiming they require commas", and "so forth" – not "your prose", "your inventing grammatical categories", and "then claiming they require commas and so forth". So the missing comma would be following "commas" and not "categories", but its omission was again intentional and I don't think any serious ambiguity resulted. Jorm's misread owed to the partial quote, not to a missing comma. Cheers. –Roy McCoy (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I thought of better of it afterward, still … "numerous question marks in regard". I cant find a way to to upgrade you with that kludge still in there. cygnis insignis 01:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some question marks are supposed to be mysterious and obscure. :-) –Roy McCoy (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Banners on User Page

[edit]

Are 

{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject Australia|class=|importance=Low|WA=y|WA-importance=low|biota=yes}}
{{WikiProject Mammals|class= |class= |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Bats|class= |class= |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Palaeontology|class=|importance=Low}}
 and alos
{{WikiProject Bananas|class=|importance=Top}}
}}

supposed to show up as banners, like the bat did? Just asking, since they don't actually show as banners on your user page. BobRoberts14 (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14[reply]

They are wrapped in code to 1. stop them appearing in maintenance categories, and 2. so I can copy and paste the code to a new article. The references are also non functional, a lazy way of storing the ones I keep using and letting others that I have those available. cygnis insignis 16:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

[edit]

This revert was inappropriate. Please follow WP:BRD. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ash-grey mouse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

[edit]

Please do not cast aspersions. Personal attacks This failure to assume good faith will not be tolerated. El_C 18:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cygnis_insignis/Archive_4&oldid=1145683891"