User talk:Mwng

Hello Mwng and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Thomas Bainbrigge Fletcher

Thanks for the additions and cleanup to this and the Harold Maxwell-Lefroy. Shyamal 12:14, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Great Tit

I've noted your many helpful edits to bird articles, but there is one minor point I wanted to discuss. Great Tit has two alternative generic names, Parus and Periparus. My preference would be to have just one of these in the taxobox, to make it less cluttered, and comment on the alternative in the text.

I don't much mind which goes in the taxobox, although generally we follow Handbook of Birds of the World, which uses the newer Periparus.

Another example where we have adopted a similar approach is Great Egret, which is allocated to no less than three genera. Thanks, Jim

Thanks, Jim

wader

Hi, I'm a bit concerned that you seem to be systematically deleting the important link to wader, the relevant subfamily of birds for eg Turnstone, but sparing the American equivalent shorebird, which is a redirect to wader. Is there any reason for this, or did you just not appreciate that wader is a taxonomic group? jimfbleak 06:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pictures from other language wikipedias?

Thanks for adding the other lanquage links on Common frog. Some of thos other language wikipedias have arguably better pictures of the frog than mine, although obviously mine is English croaking. If this is the case should one copy the picture to the english version (if it is GFDL or public domain), or link to it? Maybe its a good idea to use the scientific name for the image file name, as I did with the Common toad so that non-english speakers reliably know what it is? Let me know what you think . Billlion 09:05, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Moussier's Redstart

Well spotted - I thought I knew what was on the British list, so I didn't even check

Incorrect move

Your move of Conway River to River Conwy was performed improperly. Instead of cutting and pasting, you should have used the "move" button (above the article frame, between "history" and "(un)watch". Please read Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page for details. _R_ 18:50, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

European Hedgehog

I've submitted the article you created, European Hedgehog, for deletion. The information in the article is contained in the parent article Hedgehog. There is a distinct subsection of that article labeled European Hedgehog. I would be grateful if you had further information about Hedgehogs to add to the Hedgehog article, but I feel that separating the European species into a separate article is not needed. Kainaw 15:32, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yellow Oriole

Any thoughts on the best way to disamb these birds? It seems to be the common name for both. Adding New World/Australian is a possibility, as is (Icterus)/(Oriolus). The former is probably more intuitive, but let me know. I'll do an article for the icterid Yellow Oriole when I get the time. jimfbleak 03:45, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, on balance I preferAYW, with a redirect from Green warbler, so I'll go with that(not tonight though) jimfbleak 18:57, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Syrian Woodpecker

Are you able to clarify the author(s) on this? My book says "(Ehrenberg), sometimes credited to Hemprich and Ehrenberg". How do we know which is correct? jimfbleak 16:08, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought you would be able to sort this, jimfbleak 06:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. So far over 90% of people who have responded have done this.

Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. It's important to know, even if you choose to do anything so I don't keep asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 14:39, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Categories: Botanists by various nationalities

Hi Mwng - these are not useful. It breaks up the complete list of botanists at Category:Botanists, thereby making pages much harder to find when one needs to know (a) if a particular botanist has a page, and (b) what the page is titled, when adding links at e.g. a plant named by that botanist. Botanists are also highly international in their work, and the their nationality is often completely irrelevant to the areas they worked in, making it hard to predict what their nationality might have been (e.g. Siebold worked mainly on Japanese plants while based at a Dutch mission, making it very hard to know that he can only be found listed at Category:German botanists). I think these subcategories would be best deleted, or at the very least, any botanist listed at one of these subcategories must also be kept on the full list at Category:Botanists - MPF 14:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)