Archives

---

1. 1 December 2005 – December 2006
2. December 2006 – February 2007
3. February 2007 – July 2007
4. July 2007 – November 2007
5. November 2007 – January 2008
6. January 2008 – 27 March 2008

If you need help, check out Getting Help below, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

There appears to be a problem with the Coventry project as the statistics are not been generated correctly, left an empty table on 22 March. Some of the categories also appear to be red-linked now so this may be the problem or it could be the new bot code. Any ideas what has happened? Keith D (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you listed the project as Coventry-related. I changed this to WikiProject Coventry, for consistency with all the other pages. It was probably a run with Coventry-related, but now it runs with WikiProject Coventry. I think that it is ok. If there are any category remnants left of Coventry-related, they need to be removed by deletion. Snowman (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have racked up a taxonomy section; it can be left with brackets in the lists. The "new" specimen would allow to falsify the subspecies hypothesis if it is from Réunion. If it's too close genetically to historic skins of Mauritius parakeets one cannot tell whether the skin is form Réunion and they were subspecies, or whether the skin is from Mauritius.

So until the DNA data is theree and possibly even afterwards the choice is really dependent on whether one lumps or splits "almost-species" in general. But Wikipedia does not do either - we have redirects ;-) (I added the redirect for Psittacula eques echo which I think was the only one stil missing.

In any case, we now have an authoritative ref for both species and subspecies status. That should satisfy everyone. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, someone has recently put an image of a female Echo on flickr with a free copyright, so I have used it in the infobox. There are male Echo images, but they are copyrighted. Thanks for helping with the classification. Snowman (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Nice Psittacula photo!)

Well, preliminarily - I have not checked all the info there is (one paper seems to elude my attempts to find it):

The best guess is that Agapornis would form a distinct lineage with Loriculus. And what else? Micropsitta perhaps? Not Forpus, as it seems, but these are so distinct among the Neotropical guys that I'd think a hypothetical clade of short-tailed mini-parrots needs to be explicitly refuted. (I have not read all research; there may be one paper that actually checks for it)

In any case, there is amazingly little work being done on the issue. This Indonesian(?) guy(?) Dwi Astuti seems to be one of the hottest names around; I have seen most of the published work and Astuti's is far more in-depth than usual.

Systematically, the best way to deal with it seems to take the entire living diversity in a family (similar to what's being done with pigeons, doves, dodos) Psittacidae. Subfamilies would be Nestorinae, Cacatuinae, perhaps Loriinae and Arinae but this requires in-depth study. Because where you draw the cutoff point is crucial - it may be that it is better to have a HUGE number of subfamilies, basically make every major lineage of psittacines one. Or there may be a clear ecomorphological break between the basal and the advanced Psittacidae, in which case one would want to draw the line there and treat the lesser groupings as tribes.

What is clear is that we need the family rank to accomodate those prehistoric "proto-parrots", or better "para-parrots" as these were not very much like parrots at all - Pseudasturidae etc. Whereas the living parrots, lories, cockatoos and nestors all share highly characteristic apomorphies and as a whole stand apart from their Paleogene relatives.

The names Loriculini and Loriculinae are available for the (to be verified but probable) clade containing Agapornis. That genus is not very close to Loriculus, but still they consistently group, whereas their closest relatives switch merrily depending on how you analyze the same data. But they seem to be part of a out-of-Melanesia radiation which also brought about any or all of Aprosmictus, Psittrichas and Lorius.

If one says "Lorini is in Psittacinae", one would almost certainly have to say "Agapornis is in Loriculini in Psittacinae". But if one says "Arinae are very close relatives of Psittacinae", the question whether Loriculini or Loriculinae should be used cannot (I think) be answered at present.

(There may be an easy preliminary solution to Psittaciformes systematics which requires little change, accomodates about any conceivable future change easily, and is very nice insofar that anyone can then tell the affiliations of a psittaciform at a single glance: draw the line where the Dyck texture evolved, and use Cacatuinae and Nestorinae, and Psittacinae contianing Loriini, Arini, Loriculini, Psittacini, etc. The references would be

• HBW as baseline
• de Kloet & de Kloet (2005), updating the nestors to a very distinct lineage, part of the initial radiation and thus on equal rank with the cockatoos
• Waterhouse (2006), justifying that unlike in HBW all living Psittaciformes are placed in a single family.

But I have yet to ponder over this for some time.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am going to think about that for some time too. Snowman (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot - Lilian's Lovebird - but I see you already figured that one out. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, the group of large parakeets/smallish long-tailed parrots that inhabit Wallacea and the surrounding regions (like Australia). Basically as it says in Polytelis - they are part of an ill-defined group that also includes Psittaculini and Platycercini. Aprosmictus and Alisterus for example would also seem to belong there, but Tanygnathus is already closer to Psittacula. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most IP pages do not have user pages - and few even have talk pages. I normally move any discussion directed to me to the user talk page of the user involved so that I can find it again. This is a dial up and the specific IP address changes frequently, and is shared by many other users. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think its a virtually full breeding plumage Pacific subspecies Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis californicus. I didn't recognise it, but it looks spot on with David Sibley's picture. See this and this. Jimfbleak (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snowmanradio, I'm a pigeon fancier from Rochester, Michigan in the United States. I'm very interested in working on filling out the aviculture info on Wikipedia whether that be as a subproject or as a task force. User:Sting_au is also interested in filling out the aviculture articles. Just thought you'd like to know that there are other folks here who think that Aviculture does deserve a subproject of its own. --OnorioCatenacci (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can register an interest at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Aviculture and if there is enough interest an aviculture article can be started. Snowman (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have registered my interest. Since you seem to be much more wiki-knowledgeable than am I, what level of interest is needed to start? --OnorioCatenacci (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five or more people. Snowman (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Buff-necked Ibis Theristicus caudatus, Jimfbleak (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Black-faced Ibis looks better Jimfbleak (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are still not speaking to me. That's fine, but really you could have just told me that I uploaded the wrong size image. Anyway I fixed it now, how do I get that notice removed, so it doesn't get deleted. Image:Vera caspary.jpg EraserGirl (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is will need to be deleted, because it is still in the file history. Snowman (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So asking me to fix it was just an exercise? I can add the new one as a new file and detach the old one from the article and then when it gets deleted it won't matter. EraserGirl (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you gave a new fair use image a different name, the new one could be used on the page and the old one will be removed behind the scenes. Snowman (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I was obtuse, that was exactly what I proposed. EraserGirl (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did suggest it; I was just repeating it in my own words for clarity. Snowman (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• why the repeat warning? EraserGirl (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC) oop. it was a duplicate warning for something else. my bad. mea culpa EraserGirl (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the pic, Don't know offhand, but I'll look in my books later. It looks like a cardinal or grosbeak of some sort, pity we don't know where it's from. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my first thought was Red-capped Cardinal, but that has white underparts and no crest, and I've no source with Red-crested. Jimfbleak (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a wiki page with references for the Red-crested one. Snowman (talk) 10:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I add content to a subject and back it up with a source how is that any different than something added by someone else doing the exact same thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chet Womach (talk • contribs) 16:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a problem? Snowman (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, a fossil Agapornis was some years ago found in a Miocene deposit of South Africa. Other specimens were found in younger strata. It's nothing earth-shaking, the molecular data plus the fossil record of parrots in general would suggest that they were there by then. I'll try to get some more data on it and eventually put it up in the article. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As there are nine species of Agapornis, these details will make some difference to the wiki content of the order of parrots, about 330 - 350 species. There are taxonomic problems everywhere, even for the Little Penguin subspecies, and the Penguin order only has about 23 species. I would have thought that all these difficulties would have been sorted out from DNA evidence. Snowman (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your comment on Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_April_13#Image:Sts107_crew_faces.jpg, the template ({{ncd}}) requires that all of the conditions of WP:CSD#I8 be met, and there are quite a few. The biggest is that the image on commons be bit-for-bit identical. Thank you for your interest in the process. ~ BigrTex 16:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've nothing that covers the Galapagos for this family - sorry Jimfbleak (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult. I might ask WP:Birds. Snowman (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Took me a while to figure out how to reply to your message, haha. I'm just writing an small article about the Northen Brushtail Possum at the moment. Thanks for the compliment and the links :) I will edit my user page another day as it's getting late. --Scarlet23 (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hurry to write on your user page. I plan to have a look at the Possum page soon. Snowman (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who does the assessments, but I think it's spiffy.

The image you got from Flickr for this article, are you sure of that ID? Given the location of the photographer I think that Crimson Rosella is a much stronger candidate, especially as the photographer in question has some pictures of that species from the same location. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. I have re-uploaded the image with a correct file name and the old one will be deleted after a day or two. Snowman (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowmanradio, you removed two links from the Conures section of Wikipedia without notifying me, or sharing your concerns. If you would have come to me, I would have told you that the links you removed are not spam. Shameless advertising is spam, but the websites I posted are not. They are two websites that specialize in Parrots, one directly specializes in Conures. Both websites have actively rescued parrots, raised money for the benefit of parrot's world wide, and taught many people many new and interesting things about birds. If you need a third party back up or any such reference, I will be happy to assist you. Might I suggest googling XOParrots and seeing what it's all about? Lexhatesyou (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather anecdotal I thought. Snowman (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I just wait until you are finished? I keep running into edit conflicts when I try to paste in my changes.EraserGirl (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I have finished there now. Snowman (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are just gonna have to come back as soon as I mess around.EraserGirl (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to look up people who edit pages I create (like the Higgs Report) because I'm always surprised that anyone looks at this stuff. But I just wanted to say, I'm pinching one of your useboxes - the Radio 4 one, which is v. funny! Wikidea 11:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my sandbox I recently changed the ref format used on the Penguin article: from naming the author and date in parentheses inline to the footnote method. Because of the way the article has been written, some of the references to the books have been retained, but otherwise I think its tidier...any comments? --Red Sunset 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brill. Snowman (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the following paragraph from the artice--"Coombs test":

"The direct Coombs test is used to detect red blood cells sensitized with IgG alloantibody, IgG autoantibody, and complement proteins. It detects antibodies bound to the surface of red blood cells in vivo. The red blood cells (RBCs) are washed (removing the patient's own plasma) and then incubated with antihuman globulin (also known as "Coombs reagent"). If this produces agglutination of the RBCs, the direct Coombs test is positive."

I think it's inappropriate to say that RBCs get sensitized by antibodies, rather it's the other way round, meaning, RBCs can sensitize some component of the immune system leading to production of IgM/IgG that gets bound to the RBC surface. Since, it'd be fairly complex to express this principle, and somewhat even beyond the scope of this article, I suggest the following alternative to the above paragraph"

The direct Coombs test is used to detect antibodies or complement proteins bound to the surface of red blood cells in vivo. The antibodies could be IgG allo- or autoantibodies. The red blood cells (RBCs) are washed (removing the patient's own plasma) and then incubated with antihuman globulin (also known as "Coombs reagent"). If this produces agglutination of the RBCs, the direct Coombs test is positive.

Or more simply, sensitized with could be substituted by primed with.

Do let me know what you think.

Ketan Panchal, MBBS (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply and comments on "Coombs test" talk page. Snowman (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last two days I have considerably increased the "Philip Larkin" entry, trying to add a factual backbone. Afterwards I added the following on the "talk page":

"Although I've added quite a lot of material, I haven't added any references yet. I've noted the sentence: WP:Verifiability says: All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable, published source. Every thing I've added - I think - is a firm fact to be found in the Motion biog, the Letters and the Bradford book, and I really can't imagine it being challenged. But I'm a "Newbie" so please help me out if there's anything you think I need to give a direct reference to. Almost-instinct 09:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)"

I see that you have added a template saying that things in the article need verifying. Please could you tell me which items these are? Everything I added is sourced from the standard published works on Larkin [Motion, Thwaite, Bradford] so I will happy to provide page numbers for anything of mine that you think seems contentious. Please advise. Yours Almost-instinct 22:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is relatively few inline citations, which more directly verify facts. I have now added a better header banner to make this point more clearly, which contains some links to pages about inline citations. Snowman (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've had a look through the various structures for citing suggested by the articles the new template links to, and compared it with how the Larkin notes are currently arranged. I've added a couple of citations: could you glance over them and check that I'm doing them in the appropriate manner? Then I'll plough on. Almost-instinct 13:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding use of penguin images from my website photovolcanica.com (as questioned in wikiproject birds talk). See my response - images freely available for wikipedia use. Several more penguin trips planned this year so will be more pictures to come (African Penguin page is currently in preparation). RRvolcanica (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your "Yellow-eyed Penguin" pictures which will be greatly appreciated. I have put the best of what I can find from flickr (with free copyright) and wiki commons on the "Penguin" page in genuses, as well as many more on species and genus pages. There are many more great images on your website to search through, and I will look for penguins (including juveniles) going about their daily lives - swimming, walking, feeding, on nests, their eggs, in burrows, feeding little chicks and big chicks, as well as views of the terrain where they live, and perhaps some of the dangers they face. I hope to add many images from your website to these popular wiki pages and also many more to the wiki commons for anyone to see and use. It might take several weeks. It is a regulation that each image has a link to your website to show its source, and I hope the url locations will be stable for some years to come. There might be an official way of informing the wiki that you are giving permission for your images to be released to the wiki with an appropriate copyright. Snowman (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like so many of the images. I will look into officially making them available as soon as possible. Am actually about to head off to Krakatau volcano so will have to wait for a couple of weeks unless i can find quick way of making available.. 145.64.134.234 (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be easier if you logged onto the wiki, so that you can sign your edits with your wiki-name. Have a nice time; and watch out for red-hot rocks flying out newly active volcanoes. You can upload images to wikicommons (or the en wiki) from anywhere in the world, if they are your own work. I think that I must wait for official confirmation of the copyright permission before uploading any of your images from your webiste, because they will probably be deleted owing to perceived copyright problems. I can wait a few weeks, if it takes that long, or longer for the copyright permission. I plan to add some relevant external links from the wiki penguin pages to your website soon. Someone has added some info on image copyright on the WP Bird talk page.Snowman (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:ShepBot has started tagging Warwickshire articles for you. I just did the basic first level cats and only came up with 600 some to tag. If you have other cats within Warwickshire you would like done just drop me a note. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]