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 – March 2008
7. March 2008 – August 2008
8. September 2008 – 13 December 2008
9. December 2008 – 1 February 2009
10. February 2009 – 2 July 2009

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

Axl has now kindly added a section on COPD to Oxygen toxicity#Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. If you find a chance, could you look at it and see if it meets the points you raised in WP:Featured article candidates/Oxygen toxicity/archive1, please? --RexxS (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the gallery where the racquet-tailed parrot (the one I mentioned on talk of wp:bird) originated there are a few others perhaps worth uploading: Red-billed Parrot [1], Blue-eyed Cockatoo [2], pair of King Bird-of-Paradise [3], male Wilson's Bird-of-Paradise [4], and perhaps (very annoying with the pink bars, but species rarely photographed) the Blue-rumped Parrot [5]. • Rabo³ • 02:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have uploaded a few more from the flikr photostream. Snowman (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work on the Célestin Hennion article, after watching the show last night I was suprised no article existed, so thought it was worth a start. I feel it may be worth a DYK, but can't think of a hook which we can use that is varifiable. Any suggestions? FruitMonkey (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping that someone will identify the medal he was awarded, and maybe that will provide the hook. Snowman (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for edits to table. I saw your last edit summary, but I think perched images would be overkill. There are plenty of perched birds in the rest of the article, and whereas the flight shots make a useful aid to ID, on perched birds the bill is enough, and that's already well shown Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Snowman (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The have some concern for the article Wanganui Park Secondary College. The article has been vandalized many times by various users, this article is rated as a stub, so it's not too much of a problem. Would be appropriate to semi-protect the article to prevent any more vandalism? Cheers --Skinips (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When articles are semi-protected, it is granted following a lot more vandalism. Snowman (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there is a discussion at Talk:JP Travel which you may be interested in regarding notability of smaller bus operators. (This is a copy and paste message, I have included you in this as you make bus related contributions in the past) Jeni ^(talk) 18:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article, which you created, is currently at WP:AFD. Mjroots (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message. I see that it has four keep votes already. Snowman (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Snowmanradio, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Richard Millington has been removed. It was removed by Flint McRae with the following edit summary '(Replace tag)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Flint McRae before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

Hi Snowmanradio! An article you have been concerned with has now been significantly overhauled to bring it in line with Wiki policy, guidelines, and prose style. However, without first-hand subject knowledge, the copyeditor may have left some items or citations for further clarification. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Leamington Spa, address the different points if you can, and leave any comments there. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I have been trying to weed out common names, the current list is here: User:Rich_Farmbrough/temp22, your suggestion may well help, although the title of the article is not always the name in the taxobox - I was looking at doing some kind of pre-parse based on the genus or species entries. Of course with some names the "Latin" name is also the common name, such as Aster. Any comments welcome. Rich Farmbrough, 22:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Snowman: Sorry. I've requested that all my subpages with categories on them be deleted. I'll work on them offline! MeegsC | Talk 12:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not mean to cause any difficulties. It would be simple just to add the hidden mark up (<!--[[Categeory:Name]]-->) and that is fixed the problem. Snowman (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, they were mostly things that have been on the back burner for ages anyway. I'd already removed the categories from sandboxes I'd worked on more recently, and just deleted the rest of them. MeegsC | Talk 15:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your latest comment on the FAC page ... frustrating, but honest. And also for all the time you've spent trying to point out the issues - that's appreciated. It looks as though the article isn't going to pass FA this time, unless we get a sudden influx of Yes voters, but that's OK. Could you do two things? First, there are various issues you've raised, which I think I've fixed/resolved - could you go through the FA nomination to indicate which ones you think are fixed and which are outstanding. Second, could you give me an idea of where on the path to FA we should reverse back to. The kinds of issues you're raised are all the sort of thing which should have been raised in the peer review, or perhaps even in the GA nomination, but weren't for whatever reason. Should we revisit the GA status, or should we just re-run the peer review stage? Thanks again. SP-KP (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are putting a lot of work into this. I am probably not going to do much editing on the page or the review for the next few weeks. These are only some suggestions which you may or may not like to consider. For the moment, I think that it would be best to work through the points in the FA review, which can last 2 or 3 months. If it fails FA, it will go back to GA status automatically. I think you need a plan to get the article straight, and work on it for up to six months or so. I think better visual aids would help presentation and hold readers attention for longer - tables instead of lists, lists instead of long sequences of bird names in the text. better images, possible flow charts or histograms, or other visual types of visual aids. It may be easier to consider the topic in separate blocks: the topic probably includes the organisation of the committee, the people of the committee, the work of the committee, the history of the committee, the birds. I am not sure if it would be a good idea to cope for readers with special interests - eagles, owls, doves and so on. To be honest, I am not particularly interested in the committee, and I think that visual aids, excellent presentation, and plain English are the keys to improving the article? Snowman (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that useful advice. Will you have time to review the specific issues you've raised which I believe I've resolved, to check if you agree? If it will help you, I can cut & paste these here so that you can look at them all together in one go. SP-KP (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FA reviewing can be a slow process. Please use the article's talk page for discussing the article. Snowman (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. What's the answer to my question though? SP-KP (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expect so, but not today. Snowman (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. SP-KP (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the FAC discussion has been closed so is no longer open for editing. I've copied the discussion here so that you can signify which issues you believe are resolved and which are still outstanding. SP-KP (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the original image to the infobox on chinchilla. The one you used is a great image, but that's not the best page for it. There are three chinchilla articles: one on the generic, domestic chinchilla and two on the two separate wild types (one of which, over time, became the domestic chinchilla). The image you replaced was the one on the generic, domestic chinchilla article which is why the previous picture of a domestic chinchilla was better suited. I did, however, move the wild picture down to the "native environment" section and then used it in the infobox at the Long-tailed Chinchilla article, which is more specific to the wild type. .....I hope that isn't too confusing.....chinchillas are confusing.....ugh.... :/ --13² 15:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is ok, I hope you like the image and can find a use for it. I am hoping that someone can identify the species or type of chinchilla. I have not seen many photographs of them in the wild. Snowman (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love the image. It's so rare and awesome, which is why I quickly put it in two locations: in the environment section of Chinchilla and the infobox of Long-tailed Chinchilla. It's definitely a Long-tailed Chinchilla (Chinchilla lanigera). The other main species is short and stubby and a wild one hasn't been seen since the 50s. It's pretty said. :( --13² 15:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People might think a bit more about the wild ones seeing photographs of the them in the wild. I was interested to see its colours. Is there anything about the colour of the wild ones in the caption or articles? Snowman (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another user has suggested that it may not be a chinchilla, but, rather, a viscacha. I'm not completely sure that's true, but I'm not completely sure it's not either. They're from the same family and they do look very similar, but I'm still not convinced this isn't a chinchilla. Hmm. :/ --13² 17:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have put it in the category for Unidentified Chinchillidae on commons. Snowman (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please ensure that when you move pages you move all the redirects. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A bot does these after a short while. I understand that the recommendation is to at least fix significant redirects (not necessarily all redirects), but even significant redirect will be fixed by the bot after a short while. Thank you for fixing it, but it would have been fixed after a short while by DarknessBot - see it working to correct this double redirect Snowman (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On September 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yellow-billed Amazon, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snow, I'm sorry to have to contact you regarding 'Commons' but your talk-page is so big I couldn't add anything to it. I've just received some barely legible 'twoddle' regarding an image of a Mistletoebird and a my film-clip of a Red-bellied Pitta, I think he/it is telling me that I don't have a 'Category' assigned to either file but I clearly have at the bottom of the page.....any ideas what on earth it is about? (plain-english please!) Aviceda talk 10:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not worry about it. I have just added categories to those two images. I suggest that you just add - "Thankyou for the bot memo - an editor has fixed it now".Snowman (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just archived my much of my commons talk page making it easier to add comments there. Snowman (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman, I think you interaction with Arthur is symptomatic for how you deal with many aspects of wikipedia, and it was a obvious sign of how things should not be done. It is very problematic that you frequently will cherry pick rules and interpretations to chastise editors who are not doing things as you want them to be. It was quite obvious from the discussion about the external links that most editors had no problem with having those links. A similar issue arose with the moving of the pages, where you deliberately enforced the last motion when you liked it (hyphenated names) and ignored it when you didn't like it (certain names). This frequently leads to irritations with the other regulars, as well as result in running of newbies. This way of dealing with a large project like this is counter productive. Please reconsider how you are dealing with this kind of issues at the project. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not bring these edits to the attention of the WP Bird talk page. I did not accuse the new user of any wrong doing. I think that you are scapegoating me. Snowman (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think what you want, but this kind of responses from you in which you dodge the issue at hand, pick a aspect that can be used as an excuse for why you are blameless, are exactly the issue. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained that the proposals were badly written. There was a 10 to 1 vote in favour of IOC WBL names as the default in the latter proposal. Snowman (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you again confirm what I wrote. You just cherry pick one other aspects and ignore the larger message. This is the problem. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained - the proposals were badly written. The first proposal and the amendments and then the second proposal were complicated and needed to be seen together. It seems to me that consensus were developing and policies were being thought out. Snowman (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman, please read what I wrote first. You are now doing exactly the same thing, picking one aspect, go to the strict letter of what was written, and argue that detail. It is obvious to me that you are completely missing the point, to the point where I suspect that you really cannot see the issue at hand, probably wondering why people frequently have trouble dealing with you (if you see that at all). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not as simple as you tend to indicate. The issues were dynamic and policies were changing and being thought out. I have explained all my edits as I went along. Snowman (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, things are really simple. First of all, Shyamal asked about the FORMATTING of the links, and three people agreed it was not spam and it was about how to format the links. You and you alone immediately responded with having to delete those links, that it is conflict of interest, etc. You start deleting all links. Similarly, when there is a motion carried by 10 and only you opposing, you just disregard it and position that pages should be moved back if there was no consensus for it. Both issues have the same issue, namely policy thrumoping over reason and selectively usage of policies to advance your own position while ignoring the opinions of the majority of editors at this project. And that IS a problem. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A analysis of the edits would show otherwise. I deleted a number of links after being requested to do so by the website owner. Snowman (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Snowman. Did you notice my comment at the WP:BIRD talk page that File:Accipiter striatus -Tucson -Arizona -USA-8.jpg is actually Accipter cooperii? Seems you and I had a failure of communication on that, so I apologize for my half. I'm happy to rename it, but I wanted to let you know first. Natureguy1980 has already removed it from the Sharp-shinned Hawk article. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded to File:Accipiter cooperii-Tucson -Arizona -USA-8.jpg and bad file listed for deletion. Snowman (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On September 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Red-fronted Parrot, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am truly sorry for being rude and I apologise.

Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

could you help me? I need help with this article i am making, I am trying to figure out how to redirect to a section. - BennyK95 - Talk 22:19, October 5 (UTC)